Allowed

Akhil.S v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC3 Jun 2016Crl.MC/3158/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court allowed a petition under Section 482 CrPC to quash criminal proceedings for offences of wrongful restraint and voluntarily causing hurt. Relying on the amicable settlement between parties and the private nature of the offence, the court held that continuing proceedings would abuse legal process and prejudice both sides.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed; all further proceedings against petitioners in Crime No. 1739 of 2011 shall stand quashed.

Akhil.S Vs State of Kerala — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF JUNE 2016/13TH JYAISHTA, 1938H

¶5

Crl.MC.No.3158 of 2016 ()

¶6

CRIME NO. 1739/2011 OF TOWN EAST POLICE STATION , TRISSUR

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED:

¶8

AKHIL.S SEKHAR, AGED 24 YEARS, S/O SEKHAR, SHANKARANTHADATHIL HOSUE, MUNDUR VILLAGE, KAIPARAMBU POST, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶9

SHEMEERALI,

¶10

AGED 25 YEARS, S/O ABDUL MAJEED, PATHIPPUKULAM HOUSE, VADAKKEKARA VILLAGE, VELLAANGALLUR DESOM, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶11

RAMKUMAR,

¶12

AGED 25 YEARS, S/O BABY, PORATHAAD HOUSE, AVINISSERY VILLAGE, OLLUR P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶13

MOHAMMED RAFI, AGED 25 YEARS, S/O KUNJAAPPU, THARUPEDIKAYIL HOUSE, PUTHANCHIRA VILLAGE, DESOM, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶14

BY ADV. SRI.C.DHEERAJ RAJAN

¶15

RESPONDENT(S)/STATE/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:

¶16

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN:682031.

¶17

SUMESH, AGED 27 YEARS, S/O CHANDRASEKHARAN, MADAPATT HOUSE, ARATTUPUZHA DESOM, VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK.

¶18

VAISHAK, AGED 24 YEARS,

¶19

S/O RAVEENDRAN, CHIRAYATH HOUSE, PADIYAM DESOM, ANTHIKKAD VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK.

¶20

Crl.MC.No.3158 of 2016 ()

¶21

:2:

¶22

R2,R3 BY ADV. SMT.V.VIJITHA R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.SAREENA GEORGE

¶23

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03-06-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶24

Crl.MC.No.3158 of 2016 ()

¶25

APPENDIX

¶26

PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES:-

¶27

A: TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO.1739/2011 OF THRISSUR EAST POLICE STATION, THRISUR DISTRICT.

¶28

B: TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT FILD BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶29

C: TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶30

RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES:-NIL

KRJ

//TRUE COPY//

P.A TO JUDGE

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V, J

¶35

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

¶36

Crl.M.C No.3158 of 2016

¶37

Dated 3^rd June, 2016

¶38

ORDER

¶39

1.Petitioners herein are the accused Nos. 1 to 4 in Crime No. 1739 of 2011 of Thrissur East Police Station. The crime was registered at the instance of the second respondent herein for offences punishable under Sections 341 and 323 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶40

2.Prosecution allegation is that on 20.09.2011 at about 4.30 p.m, petitioners in furtherance of their common intention wrongfully restrained and voluntarily caused hurt to respondents 2 and 3.

¶41

3.Petitioners have come up with this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking to quash all further proceedings as against them on the ground that the disputes between the parties have been amicably resolved

¶42

-:2:-

¶43

Crl.MC.3150/16

¶44

by means of a compromise.

¶45

4.It is submitted by the learned counsel that the petitioners as well as respondents 2 and 3 are students of Maharajas Technical Institute, Thrissur and it was in pursuant of a minor scuffle that the crime registered.

¶46

5.Respondents 2 and 3 have entered appearance through counsel and it is submitted that the matter has been amicably resolved between the parties and they do not intend or wish that the criminal proceedings as against the petitioners should continue any further. It is also submitted that Annexure B and C affidavits have been sworn to by the respondents 2 and 3 asserting that the matter has been settled and they are living in peace and harmony.

¶47

6.Learned Public Prosecutor, on instructions, submits that first petitioner is a person against whom a crime under Section 160 of the Indian Penal Code has been registered and so far as other petitioners are concerned, no criminal antecedents are reported. However, in view of the fact that the matter

¶48

-:3:-

¶49

Crl.MC.3150/16

¶50

has been settled and the offences are personal in nature no serious objection is raised.

¶51

7.It is thus borne out from the submissions made at the Bar that the parties have amicably settled their disputes on their free will and without any kind of pressure, influence or coercion. The compromise, it is felt, is voluntarily and genuine and can be acted upon. The law with regard to the settlement of criminal disputes on the strength of an amicable resolution of the disputes between the parties is no more res integra .

¶52

8.In Gian Singh v. State of Punjab [(2012) 10 SCC 303], Apex Court has laid down that in appropriate cases, the High Court can take note of the amicable resolution of disputes between the victim and the wrongdoer to put an end to the criminal proceedings. This view was reiterated in Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab [(2014) 6 SCC 466] and Yogendra Yadav and Others v. State of Jharkhand and Another [(2014) 9 SCC 653].

¶53

-:4:-

¶54

Crl.MC.3150/16

¶55

9.It was held that the inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz; (i) to secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court. It was held that certain categories of cases involving heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim's family and the offender have settled the dispute as those offences are not private in nature and have serious impact on society. But those cases where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and those in which the parties have resolved their entire dispute could fittingly be quashed by this court taking into account the compromise between the offender and victim. In such cases the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal case would put accused and the de facto complainant to great oppression and prejudice.

¶56

-:5:-

¶57

Crl.MC.3150/16

¶58

10.After having anxiously considered the submissions it is felt that it would be unfair and contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceeding. It would only tantamount to abuse of process of law to subject the parties to the ordeal of a protracted criminal proceeding despite the settlement and compromise between the victim and wrongdoer. Settlement will augur well for the interest of the community and will enable the parties to live in peace and harmony.

¶59

I of the firm view that this petition can be allowed. The petition is allowed and all further proceedings against the petitioners in Crime No. 1739 of 2011 of Thrissur East Police Station shall stand quashed.

¶60

Sd/- RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V JUDGE

¶61

krj.3/6/16

Akhil.S v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Akhil.S 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

Abulatheef Backer Vs Mohammed Basheer

Muhammed Jamshik D. Vs Muhammed Jabir K.

Muhammed Hasheer a @ Muhammed Asheer Vs State of Kerala

Abubacker Siddique Vs the District Superintendend of Police

Antony @ Jojo Vs State of Kerala

Abilash K. Vs State of Kerala