Allowed

Biju v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC21 Jun 2016Crl.MC/3169/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala quashed criminal proceedings and dismissed the cases against the petitioners under Section 482 CrPC. The court held that the offence was personal, had arisen from a settled dispute, and compromise had been reached between the parties, making further prosecution unnecessary.

What did the court decide?

All pending proceedings against the petitioners in C.C. No. 602/2012 stood quashed.

Biju Vs State of Kerala — Quashing and FIR | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF JUNE 2016/31ST JYAISHTA, 1938

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 3169 of 2016

¶6

C.C.NO. 602/2012 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-I, ATTINGAL CRIME NO. 213/2012 OF ATTINGAL POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED :

¶8

1. BIJU S/O. GOPINATHAN PILLAI, AGED 35 YEARS, BIJU VILASOM, KANJURAMVILA, NANDAYVANAN DESOM, NAGAROOR VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.

¶9

2. SHANU,

¶10

S/O.MOHANAN, AGED 26 YEARS, VAZHAVILA PUTHEN VEEDU, KURAVANVILAKATHU, NANDAYVANAM DESOM, NAGAROOR VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.

¶11

3. ANOOP,

¶12

S/O.SASI, AGED 24 YEARS, VAZHAVILA PUTHEN VEEDU, KARAVANVILAKATHU, NANDAYVANAM DESOM, NAGAROOR VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.

¶13

BY ADVS. SRI.K.SIJU

¶14

SMT.S.SEETHA

¶15

RESPONDENT(S)/DE-FACTO COMPLAINANT & STATE :

¶16

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ATTINGAL POLICE STATION, THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA- 682 031.

¶17

2. SANAKAN, S/O. SIVANANDAN, AGED 48 YEARS, PUTHENVILA VEEDU, NEDUMAMPARAMBU DESOM, KARAVARAM VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT- 695 605.

¶18

R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. V.S.SREEJITH R2 BY ADV. SRI.A.MUHAMMED RAFFI

¶19

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21-06-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

Crl.MC.No. 3169 of 2016

¶21

APPENDIX

¶22

PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES :

¶23

ANNEXURE 1 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF FIR WITH FIS IN CRIME NO.213/2012 OF ATTINGAL POLICE STATION.

¶24

ANNEXURE 2 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF REPORTS SUBMITTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KATHIRUR.

¶25

ANNEXURE 3 THE TCOPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 20/08/2015.

¶26

RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES :

NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.A.TO JUDGE

Msd.

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN, V., J.

¶32

Crl.M.C. No.3169 OF 2016

¶33

------------------------------------------------Dated this the 21^st day of June, 2016

¶34

O R D E R

¶35

~~~~~~~

¶36

1. Invoking powers of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the instant petition is preferred by the accused Nos.1 to 3 in C.C. No.602 of 2012 of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-1, Attingal. The 2^nd respondent is the de facto complainant, and it is at his instance that the aforesaid crime was registered for offences under Sections 294(b), 341 and 332 read with Section 34 of IPC.

¶37

2.The prosecution allegation is that, on 8.2.2012, at about 11.30 p.m., the petitioners had wrongfully restrained the de facto complainant and assaulted him.

¶38

3.I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners , the respondent No 1 and the learned Public

¶39

Crl.M.C.No.3169/2016

¶40

-2-

¶41

Prosecutor.

¶42

4.It is submitted that during the pendency of the proceedings , the rival parties have decided to give a quietus to all their subsisting disputes . After much deliberations amongst themselves and at the interventions of persons who are respected by both parties , they have decided to bury the past and turn a new leaf. There is no acrimony between the parties at present and they are living in peace and harmony. To bring on record the settlement, the 1^st respondent has filed an affidavit in which he affirms in unmistakable terms his decision to erase the bitter incidents of the past and to start afresh.

¶43

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

¶44

6.I have given my anxious considerations to the submissions made across the bar and I have also gone

¶45

Crl.M.C.No.3169/2016 -3-

¶46

through the materials on record.

¶47

7.It appears that the offence is entirely personal in nature

¶48

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

¶49

8.I am of the considered opinion that this is one of those exceptional cases where prayer for invocation of the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction can be justifiably invoked to serve the ends of justice as the case falls within the matrix of guidelines laid down by the Apex

¶50

Crl.M.C.No.3169/2016

¶51

-4-

¶52

Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab ( 2012 (4) KLT 108) and Narinder Singh and others v. State of

¶53

Punjab and anr. (2014) 6 SCC 466) and other cases.

¶54

In the result, this petition is allowed. All further proceedings against the petitioners in C.C.No.174 of 2014 on the files of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class Magistrate Court, Tripunithura, shall stand quashed.

¶55

Sd/-

¶56

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN, V. JUDGE

¶57

Ps/21/6/16

¶58

“C.C No. 174 of 2014 on the files of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class Magistrate Court, Tripunithura” occurring in the operative portion of the final order dated 21/06/2016 in Crl. M.C.No.3169/2016 is corrected and substituted as “C.C. No.602/2012 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Attingal” as per order dated 17/07/2017 in Crl. M.A.No.7703/2017 in Crl. M.C.No. 3169/2016.

¶59

Sd/Registrar (Judicial)

¶60

Crl.M.C.No.3169/2016

-5-

xxx

//True copy//

PA to Judge

Biju v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Biju 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

Bibin Vs State of Kerala

Aneesh K.V Vs the State of Kerala

Abdul Rahiman K.P. Vs Station House Officer

B.M.Ibrahim Vs State of Kerala

Vishnu Vs State of Kerala

Mahmood Vs State of Kerala