Allowed

Shybu v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC30 Jun 2016Crl.MC/3116/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed petitions seeking quashal of criminal proceedings for assault under Sections 323/324/506 IPC. The court held the offence was personal in nature and, given the out-of-court settlement and the complainant's pardon, quashing was justified under Section 482 CrPC following the ratio of Gian Singh to serve community peace.

What did the court decide?

All further proceedings against the petitioners (accused 1 to 5) in C.C.No.1315 of 2013 shall stand quashed.

Shybu Vs State of Kerala — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF JUNE 2016/9TH ASHADHA, 1938

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 3116 of 2016

¶6

CC.1315/2013 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-I, VAIKOM

¶7

PETITIONERS:

¶8

1. SHYBU, AGED 32 YEARS,

¶9

S/O.DHAMODHARAN, KOLARAYIL HOUSE,

¶10

KULASHEKHARAMANGALAM VILLAGE, MARAVANTHURUTHU P O,

¶11

VAIKOM, KOTTAYAM, PIN 686608.

¶12

2. PRAVEEDN SURENDRAN, AGED 25 YEARS,

¶13

S/O.SURENDRAN, KANDATHIL HOUSE,

¶14

KULASHEKHARAMANGALAM VILLAGE, MARAVANTHURUTHU P O,

¶15

VAIKOM, KOTTAYAM, PIN 686608.

¶16

3. VIBIN SADANANDAN, AGED 25 YEARS,

¶17

S/O.SADANANDAN, KANDATHIL HOUSE,

¶18

KULASHEKHARAMANGALAM VILLAGE, MARAVANTHURUTHU P O,

¶19

VAIKOM, KOTTAYAM, PIN 686608.

¶20

4. PRASHANTH, AGED 28 YEARS,

¶21

S/O.MADHUSUDHANAN, PUTHANPARAMBIL/PULIMADATH,

¶22

KULASHEKHARAMANGALAM VILLAGE, MARAVANTHURUTHU P O,

¶23

VAIKOM, KOTTAYAM-686608.

¶24

BY ADV. SRI.SHAJI THANKAPPAN

¶25

RESPONDENTS:

¶26

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶27

2. VINOD K, AGED 45 YEARS,

¶28

S/O.KRISHNANKUTTY, VINOD BHAVAN, MARAVANTHURUTHU P O, VAIKOM, KOTTAYAM, PIN 686608.

¶29

R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.SAREENA GEORGE R2 BY ADV. SRI.BENNY VARGHESE

¶30

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30-06-2016 ALONG WITH CRL.MC.NO.3423/2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶31

¶32

Crl.MC.No. 3116 of 2016

¶33

APPENDIX

¶34

PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES

¶35

ANNEXURE A1: CERTIFIED COPY OF THE PRIVATE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT AS CMP NO 7552/2013 BEFORE THE JFCM COURT I, VAIKOM

¶36

ANNEXURE A2: CERTIFIED COPY OF THE CHARGE IN CC NO 1315/2013 ON THE FILE OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-I,VAIKOM

¶37

ANNEXURE A3: ORIGINAL OF THE AFFIDAVIT PREPARED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶38

RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES

NIL.

/ TRUE COPY /

P.S. TO JUDGE

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V., J

¶44

======================== Crl.M.C. No. 3116 of 2016

¶45

¶46

Crl.M.C. No. 3423 of 2016

¶47

==================

¶48

Dated this the 30^th day of June, 2016

¶49

========================

¶50

ORDER

¶51

1.The petitioners in Crl.M.C. No.3116 of 2016 are the

¶52

accused Nos. 1, 2, 4 and 5 and the petitioner in

¶53

Crl.M.C.No.3423 of 2016 is the 3^rd accused in C.C.No.1315 of 2013 of the Judicial Magistrate of 1^st Class- I, Vaikom. The 2^nd respondent herein is the defacto complainant.

¶54

2.They have preferred this petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure banking on the ratio of the Judgment rendered by the Three – Judge Bench of the Apex Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab ( 2012 (4) KLT 108) and a series of other cases which include Narinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and anr. (2014) 6 SCC 466) and Yogendra

¶55

Yadav and others V State of Jharkhand (2014 (9)

¶56

SCC 653 ) with a prayer to quash the proceedings. The

¶57

sole ground is that the Apex Court in the above

¶58

Crl.M.C. No. 3116 of 2016 & 2 Crl.M.C. No. 3423 of 2016

¶59

judgments have delineated the circumstances and the cases in which inherent powers under Section 482 can be invoked de hors section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for recognizing out of court settlement for the purpose of quashing criminal proceedings.

¶60

3.Referring to the facts, it is borne out from the records that crime No.841 of 2013 of Thalayolaparambu Police Station and was registered at the instance of the 2^nd respondent herein alleging offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 506(i) and 34 of the IPC. The prosecution allegation is that on 14.10.2013 the petitioners have assaulted the defacto complainant and caused injuries.

¶61

4.It is submitted that the parties have reached an out of court settlement and there is no acrimony between them at present. They have agreed to start afresh and to live in peace and harmony. The pendency of the criminal proceeding will hinder their cordial relationship in no small measure. To bring on record the settlement,

¶62

Crl.M.C. No. 3116 of 2016 & 3 Crl.M.C. No. 3423 of 2016

¶63

the 2^nd respondent has also filed an affidavit wherein he states in unequivocal terms that he has pardoned the petitioners and reiterates that he has no objection in terminating the proceedings.

¶64

5.The learned Public Prosecutor, on instructions, submits that the petitioners are not persons with criminal antecedents.

¶65

6.I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made across the bar and I have also gone through the materials on record.

¶66

7.It appears that the offence is entirely personal in nature and do not affect public peace or tranquility. It is also felt that quashing of proceedings on account of compromise would bring about peace. In a case such as the instant one, even if the prosecution is allowed to continue, it would not serve any purpose as the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak. It can only result in putting the de facto complainant and the accused to unwanted oppression and prejudice.

¶67

Crl.M.C. No. 3116 of 2016 & 4 Crl.M.C. No. 3423 of 2016

¶68

Settlement will augur well for the interest of the community and will enable the parties to live in peace and harmony.

¶69

8.I am of the view that this Court is well justified in quashing the impugned proceedings as the instant case falls within the matrix of guidelines issued by the Apex Court in Gian Singh ( Supra ) and the other cases referred to above.

¶70

In the result, these petitions are allowed. All further proceedings against the petitioners, who are the accused 1 to 5 in C.C.No.1315 of 2013 on the files of the Judicial Magistrate of 1^st Class- I, Vaikom shall stand quashed.

¶71

Sd/RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V. JUDGE

¶72

SKV

Shybu v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shybu v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vittal Rai Vs State of Kerala

Muhammed Anees Vs State of Kerala

Benny Vs State of Kerala

John M.Kuriakose Vs the Superintendent of Police

Subash Chand Jain Vs State of Kerala

V.K.Lekha Surendran Vs P.v.Sreedharan