Single accused petitioned to quash criminal proceedings under Section 482 CrPC alleging destruction of case substratum and settlement with complainant. Court allowed petition and quashed proceedings.
All further proceedings against the petitioner in C.C.No.382 of 2016 of the Judicial Magistrate of 1st Class II, Hosdurg, shall stand quashed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
MONDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF JUNE 2016/23RD JYAISHTA, 1938
Crl.MC.No. 3120 of 2016 ()
--------------------------CC.NO. 382/2016 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTARTE COURT -II,HOSDURG CRIME NO. 506/2012 OF BAKEL POLICE STATION , KASARGOD DISTRICT
PETITIONER/3RD ACCUSED:
CHANDRASEKHARAN.D., AGED 42 YEARS, S/O.RAMAKRISHNA, MULLACHERUMBA, BATTATHOOR, PANAYAL VILLAGE, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.SMT.HEMALATHA SRI.BINU GEORGE
RESPONDENT(S)/STATE & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT :
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM-682 031
2. BIJESH K.J., AGED 32 YEARS, S/O.JOSEPH, KOCHUMANAYIL HOUSE, KANAKAPALLY, BALAL VILLAGE, VELLARIKUNDU TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT-671 315
3. JUNAID, AGED 24 YEARS, S/O.MAJEED, KANAKAPPALLY, BALAL VILLAGE, VELLARIKUNDU TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT-671 315
R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. SAREENA GEORGE R2 & R3 BY ADV. SMT.MARY RANZOM LOUIZ
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13-06-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
sts
Crl.MC.No. 3120 of 2016 ()
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES:
ANNEXA1 CERTIFIED COPY OF FIR IN CRIME NO.506/2012 OF BAKEL POLICE STATION
ANNEX A2 CERTIFIED COPY OF FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO.506/2012 OF BAKEL POLICE STATION
ANNEX A3 CERTIFIED COPY OF JUDGMENT IN CC NO.2203/2013 OF JFMC- II, HOSDURG DTD 7/4/2016
ANNEX A4 AFFIDAVIT DTD 21/4/2016 SWORN BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT
ANNEX A5 AFFIDAVIT DTD 21/4/2016 SWORN BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES:
NIL
/TRUE COPY/
P.A.TO JUDGE
sts
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V., J
Crl.M.C. No. 3120 of 2016
ORDER
The petitioner herein is the sole accused in C.C.No.382 of 2016 of the Judicial Magistrate of 1st Class II, Hosdurg.
The said case has arisen from Crime No.506 of 2012 of Bekel Police Station.
Crl.M.C. No.3120 of 2016 -2-
accused Nos 1 and 2 were found not guilty and they were acquitted under Section 248 (1) of the Cr.P.C. After acquittal of accused 1 and 2 parties got together and resolved the matter amicably.
Crl.M.C. No.3120 of 2016 -3-
submitted based on Annexures A4 and A5 that the continuance of criminal proceedings will be nothing but a futile exercise in view of the settlement arrived at.
812) it has been held that when substratum of the case is destroyed, there is no point in pursuing with the prosecution as against the other accused. In the instant case the injured witnesses and the de facto complainant have filed
Crl.M.C. No.3120 of 2016 -4-
separate affidavits asserting that they have entered into an amicable settlement with the petitioner and they do not wish to proceed with the criminal prosecution.
Crl.M.C. No.3120 of 2016
-5-
482 of the Code can be invoked as the case falls within the matrix of guidelines laid down by the Apex Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab ( 2012 (4) KLT 108) and Narinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and anr. reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466) and other cases.
In the result, this petition is allowed. All further proceedings against the petitioner in C.C.No.382 of 2016 of the Judicial Magistrate of 1st Class II, Hosdurg, shall stand quashed.
Sd/- RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V., JUDGE
kp/-13.6.16
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court can exercise inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC to quash criminal proceedings where the substratum of the case has been destroyed.
Whether an amicable settlement by the de facto complainant and injured witness justifies quashing the criminal case against a non-compoundable offence.
Whether the requirements of the Apex Court guidelines in Gian Singh and Narinder Singh for quashing cases involving non-cognizable offences are met.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Chandrasekharan.D.
State of Kerala
Bijesh K.J.
Junaid
Raja Vijayaraghavan.V.
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
