Allowed

Vinoy A.C v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC29 Jun 2016Crl.MC/3321/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court allowed a petition filed by an accused in a Scheduled Castes and Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act case. The court quashed the criminal proceedings upon an out-of-court settlement between the parties, citing that the offence was personal and quashing would uphold peace.

What did the court decide?

The impugned proceedings in S.C.No.538 of 2012 against the petitioner on the files of the Sessions Court, Palakkad, shall stand quashed.

Vinoy A.C Vs State of Kerala — Caste Atrocities | 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 29TH DAY OF JUNE 2016/8TH ASHADHA, 1938

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 3321 of 2016

¶6

SC 538/2012 OF SESSIONS COURT, PALAKKAD CRIME NO. 279/2011 OF MALAMPUZHA POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED :

¶8

VINOY A.C.,

¶9

AGED 30 YEARS, S/O. A.K.CHACKO, ATTACHERIL HOUSE, PUDUPPARIYRAM VILLAGE, DHONI P.O., PALAKKAD-678 009.

¶10

BY ADVS.SRI.VINAY RAMDAS SMT.K.B.ANAMIKA

¶11

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

¶12

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MALAMPUZHA POLICE STATION (PALAKKAD DISTRICT), THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031.

¶13

2. CHANDRAN, AGED 50 YEARS, S/O. APPU, PARAKALAM COLONY, THEKKE MALAMPUZHA, MALAMPUZHA, PALAKKAD.

¶14

R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.RAJESH VIJAYAN R2 BY ADV. SRI.VISHNUPRASAD NAIR

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29-06-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

msv/

¶17

Crl.MC.No. 3321 of 2016

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES:

¶20

ANNEXURE A1	A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR DTD.5.11.2011 OF THE MALAMPUZHA POLICE STATION.
ANNEXURE A2	A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT DTD.5.11.2011.
ANNEXURE A3	COPY OF THE ORIGINAL AFFIDAVIT GIVEN BY THE
	2ND RESPONDENT INTIMATING THAT HE IS HAS NO
	OBJECTION TO THIS APPLICATION BEING ALLOWED.

¶21

RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURE:

¶22

------------------------

NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.S.TO JUDGE

Msv/

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V, J

¶28

--------------------------------------

¶29

Crl.M.C. No.3321 of 2016

¶30

--------------------------------------

¶31

Dated this the 29^th day of June, 2016

¶32

O R D E R

¶33

1.The petitioner herein is the accused in S.C.No.538 of 2012 on the files of the Sessions Court, Palakkad.

¶34

2.He has preferred this petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure banking on the ratio of the Judgment rendered by the Three – Judge Bench of the Apex Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab ( 2012

¶35

(4) KLT 108) and a series of other cases which include

¶36

Narinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and anr. (2014) 6 SCC 466) and Yogendra Yadav and others V State of Jharkhand (2014 (9) SCC 653 ) with a prayer to quash the proceedings. The sole ground is that the Apex Court in the above judgments have delineated the circumstances and the cases in which inherent powers under Section 482 can be invoked de

¶37

Crl.M.C.3321/2016 2

¶38

hors section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for recognizing out of court settlement for the purpose of quashing criminal proceedings.

¶39

3.Referring to the facts, it is borne out from the records that crime No.279 of 2011 of Malampuzha Police Station was registered at the instance of the 2^nd respondent herein alleging offences punishable under Section 3(1)(xi) of the Schedule Castes and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The prosecution allegation is that on 5.11.2011 at about 13.30 p.m., the petitioner herein had wrongfully restrained the de facto complainant and assaulted him.

¶40

4.It is submitted that the parties have reached an out of court settlement and there is no acrimony between them at present. They have agreed to start afresh and to live in peace and harmony. The pendency of the criminal proceeding will hinder their cordial relationship in no small measure. To bring on record the settlement, the 2^nd

¶41

Crl.M.C.3321/2016 3

¶42

respondent has also filed an affidavit wherein he states in unequivocal terms that he has pardoned the petitioner and reiterates that he has no objection in terminating the proceedings.

¶43

5.The learned Public Prosecutor, on instructions, submits that the petitioner is not a person with criminal antecedents.

¶44

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

¶45

7.It appears 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

¶46

Crl.M.C.3321/2016

¶47

¶48

unwanted oppression and prejudice. Settlement will augur well for the interest of the community and will enable the

¶49

parties to live in peace and harmony.

¶50

8.I am of the view that this Court is well justified in quashing the impugned proceedings as the instant case falls within the matrix of guidelines issued by the Apex Court in Gian Singh ( Supra ) and the other cases referred to above.

¶51

In the result, this petition is allowed. All further proceedings against the petitioner , the sole accused in S.C.No.538 of 2012 on the files of the Sessions Court, Palakkad, shall stand quashed.

¶52

Sd/RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V. JUDGE

¶53

vps

Vinoy A.C v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vinoy A.C 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

Mumtas Vs State of Kerala

Thomas Vs State of Kerala

Baby Vs State of Kerala

Vittal Rai Vs State of Kerala

Muhammed Anees Vs State of Kerala

Benny Vs State of Kerala