Allowed

Kiran Christepher v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC22 Jun 2016Crl.MC/3170/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala quashed criminal proceedings under Section 482 CrPC in a private prosecution arising from incidents involving an unlawful assembly. The court held that since the parties had reached a settlement and the offence was personal in nature, quashing served the ends of justice.

What did the court decide?

The petition to quash criminal proceedings in C.P.No. 103 of 2014 is allowed; all further proceedings in the case stand quashed.

Kiran Christepher 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

WEDNESDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF JUNE 2016/1ST ASHADHA, 1938

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 3170 of 2016 ()

¶6

C.P.NO.103/2014 of JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, SASTHAMCOTTA CRIME NO. 1377/2012 OF SASTHAMCOTTA POLICE STATION , KOLLAM

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED :

¶8

1 KIRAN CHRISTEPHER AGED 25 YEARS, S/O. CHRISTEPHER, PRAMEELA MANDIRAM, MANAKKARA MURI, SASTHAMCOTTA VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT.

¶9

2. DELISH

¶10

AGED 24 YEARS, S/O. SAIMON, DELEEP BHAVAN, MANAKKARA MURI, SASTHAMCOTTA VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT.

¶11

3. JIJAS , S/O.JAMAL,

¶12

AGED 24 YEARS, JIJAS MANZIL, PALLISSERIKKAL MURI, SASTHAMCOTTA VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT.

¶13

4. FEBIN

¶14

AGED 26 YEARS, S/O. JESTINE, FEBINLAND, MANAKKARA MURI, SASTHAMCOTTA VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT.

¶15

5. SUNIL KUMAR

¶16

AGED 24 YEARS, S/O. THULASI, KUTTIYIL PADEETTATHIL VEEDU, THODIYOOR MURI, THODIYOOR VILLAGE, KARUNAGAPPALLY TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT.

¶17

6. RATHEESH

¶18

AGED 37 YEARS, S/O. RAMACHANDRAN PILLAI, KANJIKKAL VEEDU, THRIKKUNNAPUZHA VADAKKU MURI, SOORANADU THEKKU MURI, KOLLAM DISTRICT.

¶19

7. RAJESH @ KUTTAPPAN AGED 32 YEARS, S/O. KRISHNAN KUTTY, THEKKECHARUVILA VEEDU, MANAKKARA MURI, SASTHAMCOTTA VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT.

¶20

BY ADV. SRI.K.SIJU SMT.SEETHA.S.

¶21

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

¶22

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

¶23

2. HASHIM

¶24

AGED 22 YEARS, S/O. SULAIMAN KUNJU, CHARUVILA VEEDU, MUTHUPILAKKAD WEST MURI, SASTHAMCOTTA VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT - 690 521

¶25

3. AJAS AGED 22 YEARS, S/O. SUNIL, SINI HOUSE, MANAKKARA MURI, SASTHAMCOTTA VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT.

¶26

R2,R3 BY ADV. SRI.A.MUHAMMED RAFFI R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.SAREENA GEORGE

¶27

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22-062016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶28

Crl.MC.No. 3170 of 2016 ()

¶29

APPENDIX

¶30

PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES

¶31

-----------------------------------------ANNEXURE 1 COPY OF FIR WITH FIS IN CRIME NO.1377/2012 OF SASTHAMCOTTA POLICE STATION.

¶32

ANNEXURE 2 COPY OF FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO.1377/2012 OF SASTHAMCOTTA POLICE STATION.

¶33

ANNEXURE 3 THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT REGARDING COMPROMISE DTD.29.7.2015.

¶34

ANNEXURE 4 THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT REGARDING COMPROMISE DTD.29.7.2015.

¶35

RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES

¶36

---------------------------------------NIL

//True Copy//

P.S. To Judge

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN, V., J.

¶41

Crl.M.C. No.3170 OF 2016

¶42

-----------------------------------------Dated this the 22^nd day of June, 2016

¶43

O R D E R

¶44

~~~~~~~~

¶45

The petitioners herein are the accused Nos. 1 to 7 in C.P.No.103 of 2014 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Sasthamcotta. The above said case has arisen from Crime No.1377 of 2012 of the Sasthamcotta Police Station registered at the instance of the 2^nd respondent herein alleging commission of offence punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 324 and 308 read with Section 149 of the IPC.

¶46

2.In this petition, filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioners seek to quash the above said criminal proceedings on the ground that the matter has been compromised between the parties.

¶47

Crl.M.C.No.3170/2016 -2-

¶48

3.The prosecution allegation is that, on 20.12.2012 at about 5.30 p.m., the petitioners formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and attacked the de facto complainant and his friend. The injured witness has been arrayed as the 3^rd respondent in this petition.

¶49

4.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as well the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶50

5.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners as well as the respondents 3 and 4 were students of the Devaswom Board College, Sasthamcotta and it was during a minor scuffle between the students that the incident had taken place.

¶51

6.The learned Public Prosecutor, on instructions, submits that the first petitioner is involved in another crime registered by the Sasthamcotta police. No other antecedents are reported is the submission.

¶52

7.It is submitted that during the pendency of the

¶53

Crl.M.C.No.3170/2016 -3-

¶54

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 2^nd and 3^rd respondents have filed separate affidavits in which they affirm in unmistakable terms their decision to erase the bitter incidents of the past and to start afresh.

¶55

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

¶56

9.Though it is reported that another crime has also been registered against the 1^st petitioner, in the peculiar facts of the instant case , that cannot stand in the way in quashing

¶57

Crl.M.C.No.3170/2016 -4-

¶58

the proceedings as the matter has been settled amicably. It is also obvious 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. Settlement will augur well for the interest of the community and will enable the parties to live in peace and harmony.

¶59

10.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

¶60

Crl.M.C.No.3170/2016 -5-

¶61

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

¶62

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

¶63

In the result, this petition is allowed and all further proceedings against petitioners in C.P.No. 103 of 2014 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Sasthamcotta, shall stand quashed.

¶64

Sd/-

¶65

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN, V. JUDGE

¶66

Ps/22/6/16

Kiran Christepher v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kiran Christepher 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

Biju Vs State of Kerala

Vishnu Vs State of Kerala

Mahmood Vs State of Kerala

Rahul Vs State of Kerala

P.U Jose Vs Sub Inspector of Police

Sureshkumar @ Surendran Vs State of Kerala