Allowed

Sudheer v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC14 Jun 2016Crl.MC/3356/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed criminal proceedings under IPC sections 294(b), 323, 324, and 308 read with section 34, invoking inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC, as the dispute between the accused and the complainant had been amicably settled.

What did the court decide?

All further proceedings against the petitioners in Crime No.1703 of 2016 of the Karunagappally police station stood quashed.

Sudheer Vs State of Kerala — Dowry and Cruelty | 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 14TH DAY OF JUNE 2016/24TH JYAISHTA, 1938

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 3356 of 2016

¶6

CRIME NO. 1703/2016 OF KARUNAGAPPALLY POLICE STATION , KOLLAM DISTRICT

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED :

¶8

1. SUDHEER,

¶9

S/O. ABDUL SAMAD, AGED 27 YEARS, SAJEER MANZIL, EDAKULANGARA P.O, KARUNAGAPPALLY.

¶10

2. HARIS,

¶11

S/O. SUBAIR, AGED 26 YEARS, ITTAYIKKOTTU VADAKKATHIL, KADATHOOR MURI, KADATHOOR P.O, THAZHAVA VILLAGE, KARUNAGAPPALLY TALUK.

¶12

3. ANEESH.E@ANUS,

¶13

S/O. ELLYAS KUNJU, AGED 29 YEARS, PUTHEN THARAYIL, THODIYOOR NORTH P.O, KARUNAGAPPALLY.

¶14

4. JOHNS. H,

¶15

S/O. HASSAN KUNJU, AGED 28 YEARS, KOCHUPALLI PURATHU, MUZHANGODI, THODIYOOR P.O, KARUNAGAPPALLY.

¶16

BY ADVS. SRI.PRATHEESH.P

¶17

SMT.RENY ANTO

¶18

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

¶19

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KARUNAGAPPALLY POLICE STATION THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA.

¶20

2. VISHNU, AGED 20 YEARS, S/O. VIKRAMAN PILLAI, VISHNU NIVAS, KADATHOOR P.O, KADATHOOR MURI, THAZHAVA VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT.

¶21

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

¶22

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14-06-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

Msd.

¶24

Crl.MC.No. 3356 of 2016

¶25

APPENDIX

¶26

PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES :

¶27

ANNEXURE A1 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF FIR WITH FIS IN CRIME NO. 1703/2016 OF KARUNAGAPPALLY POLICE STATION.

¶28

ANNEXURE A2 THE COPY OF THE INVITATION LETTER OF THE 3RD PETITIONER'S MARRIAGE.

¶29

ANNEXURE A3 THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 29/03/2016 REGARDING COMPROMISE.

¶30

RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES :

NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.A.TO JUDGE

Msd.

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V, J

¶36

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.M.C.3356 of 2016

¶37

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated 14^th June, 2016

¶38

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

¶39

O R D E R

¶40

1.Invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under S.482 of the Cr.P.C., this petition is preferred by the accused Nos.1 to 4 in Crime No.1703 of 2016 of the Karunagappally police station seeking premature termination of the proceedings on the ground that the disputes have been settled with the de facto complainant.

¶41

2.It is apparent from the records that Crime No.1703 of 2016 of Karunagappally police station was registered at the instance of the 2^nd respondent herein alleging offence punishable under 294 (b), 323 324, 308 r/w Section 34 of the IPC.

¶42

3.The prosecution allegation is that on 22.05.2016, the petitioners herein had abused the 2^nd respondent and assaulted him with a steel pipe.

¶43

Crl.M.C.3356 of 2016

¶44

¶45

4.I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as the respondents.

¶46

5.It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that the parties are neighbours and that during the pendency of proceedings, they have settled the matter amicably. It is also submitted that the continuation of the criminal proceedings will act as an impediment and would destroy the new found peace and harmony.

¶47

6.The respondent No.2 has entered appearance through counsel. It is submitted by the learned counsel that all the pending disputes have been resolved. The learned counsel also refers to Annexure 3 affidavit sworn to by the 2^nd respondent to contend that he has no objection in quashing the criminal proceedings.

¶48

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

¶49

Crl.M.C.3356 of 2016

¶50

¶51

8.It is thus borne out from the submissions made at the

¶52

bar that the parties have amicably settled their disputes by their own 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.

¶53

9. In Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC

¶54

303), Apex Court has held 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

¶55

of Punjab. (2014) 6 SCC 466) and Yogendra Yadav and Others v. State of Jharkhand and

¶56

Another 2014 (9) SCC 653 .

¶57

10.After having heard the submissions of the learned Counsel and on perusing the records, it appears that the offences are entirely personal in nature and do not affect public peace or tranquility. It is also felt

¶58

Crl.M.C.3356 of 2016 4

¶59

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.

¶60

11.In the result, this petition is allowed. All further proceedings against the petitioners in Crime No.1703 of 2016 of the Karunagappally police station, shall stand quashed.

¶61

Sd/- RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V. Judge

¶62

¶63

[True copy]

¶64

P.A to Judge

Sudheer v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sudheer 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

Rakhimol Vs State of Kerala

Sahadevan Vs State of Kerala

Ratheesh Vs State of Kerala

Anil Kumar Vs State of Kerala

Sumesh Vs Sub Inspector of Police

Jaisal Vs the State of Kerala