Dismissed

Vineesh v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC3 Nov 2016Crl.MC/3307/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala refused to quash legal proceedings against six accused persons indicted forIPC offences. The court declined to exercise inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to allow the petitioners, citing their extensive criminal record and the potential disruption to public peace and harmony.

What did the court decide?

PETITION DISMISSED; Court below directed to expedite trial proceedings and bring them to a logical end at the earliest.

Vineesh Vs State of Kerala — Kerala HC (2016) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF NOVEMBER 2016/12TH KARTHIKA, 1938

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 3307 of 2016 ()

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC 730/2015 of J.M.F.C.III,NEYYATTINKARA DATED

¶7

CRIME NO. 1200/2014 OF BALARAMAPURAM POLICE STATION , THIRUVANANDAPURAM

¶8

PETITIONER(S):

¶9

VINEESH

¶10

AGED:32 YEARS, S/O VIJAYAKUMAR, RESIDING AT VARUVILAKATHU VEEDU, KOTTUKAL VILLAGE, MANGALATHUKONAM, PUTHANKANAM, VENGANOOR VILLAGE, VENGANOOR PO, THIRUVANANTHAPURM DISTRICT-695523

¶11

ANEESH AGED: 30 YEARS, S/O VIJAYAKUMAR, RESIDING AT VARUVILAKATHU VEEDU, KOTTUKAL VILLAGE,

¶12

MANGALATHUKONAM, PUTHANKANAM, VENGANOOR VILLAGE, VENGANOOR PO, THIRUVANANTHAPURM DISTRICT-695523

¶13

MUKESH AGED:29 YEARS, S/O VIJAYAKUMAR, RESIDING AT VARUVILAKATHU VEEDU, KOTTUKAL VILLAGE,

¶14

MANGALATHUKONAM, PUTHANKANAM, VENGANOOR VILLAGE, VENGANOOR PO, THIRUVANANTHAPURM DISTRICT-695523

¶15

PRADEEP @ BALU, AGED:28 YEARS, S/O VISWAMBARAN, RESIDING AT CHARUVILA PUTHENVEEDU, KAVINPURAM, ANTHIYOOR DESOM,

¶16

KOTTUKKAL VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695523

¶17

SAJITH KUMAR@SHANKARAN, AGED:28 YEARS, S/O SUDHAKARAN, RESIDING AT EDAMANAKKUZHIL LAKSHMI VILASAM, HOUSE KOTTUKAL VILLAGE, ANTHIYOOR DESOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DIST-695523

¶18

ANIL KUMAR

¶19

AGED:23 YEARS, S/O REAJENDRAN, RESIDING AT VALIYAVILA VEEDU, MYLAMOODU, NELIVILA, ANTHIYOOR DESOM, KOTTUKAL VILLAGE,

¶20

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT-695523

¶21

CONTD...

¶22

:2:

¶23

Crl.MC.No. 3307 of 2016 () --------------------------BY ADVS.SRI.J.R.PREM NAVAZ SRI.P.T.SHEEJISH

¶24

RESPONDENT(S):

¶25

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM -682031 2. PREM KUMAR AGED:50 YEARS, S/O RAVEENDRAN, RESIDING AT VARUVILAKATHU PUTHEN VEEDU, VENGANOOR PO, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DIST-695523

¶26

R2 BY ADV. SRI.AJOY VENU R BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, SRI. AMJAD ALI

¶27

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03-11-2016, ALONG WITH CRMC. 4607/2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶28

CONTD...

¶29

:3:

¶30

Crl.MC.No. 3307 of 2016 ()

¶31

APPENDIX

¶32

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ----------------------A1 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CC NO. 730/2004 ON THE FILED OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-III, NEYYATTINKARA, AROSE FROM CRIME NO. 1200/14, OF THE BALARAMPURAM POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT A2 THE AFFIDAVIT SOLEMNLY AFFIRMED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT DT 28/5/16 RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : NIL ----------------------//TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE

¶33

SKS

¶34

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V., J

¶35

¶36

Crl.M.C. No. 3307 of 2016

¶37

- - - - Dated 3^rd November, 2016

¶38

¶39

O R D E R

¶40

The petitioners herein are the accused Nos. 1 to 6 in C.C. No. 730 of 2015 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistate III, Neyyattinkara. They stand indicted for

¶41

offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 324 and 506 (ii) of the IPC. The prayer in this petition is to quash the final report in the aforesaid case.

¶42

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

¶43

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the matter has been amicably resolved. Reference is also made to Annexure-B affidavit sworn to, by the de facto complainant to buttress his submission.The learned counsel appearing for the 2^nd respondent endorses the submissions of the petitioners.

¶44

4.However, the learned Public Prosecutor on instructions,

¶45

Crl.M.C. No. 3307 of 2016

¶46

¶47

submits that the State has serious objections in allowing this petition and in quashing the proceedings. It is pointed out that the petitioners are persons who are involved in numerous crimes of grave nature and their criminaly activity has the tendency to disrupt the peace and harmony of the community .

¶48

5.I have considered the rival submissions and have anxiously evaluated the submissions advanced. I am of the considered view that the powers under section 482 of the Code cannot be invoked to grant relief to the 1^st petitioners who have a long history sheet of involvent in crimes. The inherent power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. though unrestricted and undefined should not be capriciously or arbitrarily exercised, but should be exercised in appropriate cases, ex debito justitiae to do real and substantial justice for the administration of which alone the courts exist. The same has to be exercised

¶49

Crl.M.C. No. 3307 of 2016

¶50

¶51

sparingly, carefully and with great caution.

¶52

6.The act of the petitioners in indulging in crimes one after

¶53

the other deters this Court from exercising the inherent powers as it has the tendency to disturb the peace and tranquility of the general public. The offence therefore cannot be said to be strictly personal in nature. I do not find any justifiable ground for quashing the proceedings in exercise of the inherent powers conferred under section

¶54

482 Cr.P.C. The petition will stand dismissed.

¶55

However, the Court below is directed to expedite the trial proceedings and to bring it to its logical end at the earliest.

¶56

SD/- RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V.,

JUDGE

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE

SKS

Vineesh v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vineesh 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ajayan Vs State of Kerala

Jagadeesh Chandran Vs Biju Antony

Krishnakutty Vs State of Kerala

Joshy Vs Circle Inspector of Police,Pala

Vineesh Vs State of Kerala

Manoj Vs the State of Kerala