Allowed

Raju v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC5 Aug 2016Crl.MC/3806/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed criminal proceedings against five accused in a private assault case. Relying on Apex Court precedents, the court invoked inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC to terminate the case following an out-of-court settlement, noting the offence was personal and conviction was remote.

What did the court decide?

All further criminal proceedings against the petitioners in C.C.No.1197 of 2012 are quashed.

Raju Vs State of Kerala — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF AUGUST 2016/14TH SRAVANA, 1938

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 3806 of 2016

¶6

C.C.NO.1197/2012 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-III, THRISSUR CRIME NO. 1243/2012 OF OLLUR POLICE STATION , THRISSUR

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED :

¶8

1. RAJU,

¶9

S/O. BABY, CHIRAYATH HOUSE, CHRISTOPHER NAGAR, OLLUR VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶10

2. REGHUNATHAN,

¶11

S/O. KOCHUNNI, EDATHARA HOUSE,

¶12

KUTTANALLUR, OLLUR VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶13

3. NAVEEN REGHUNATHAN,

¶14

S/O. REGHUNATHAN, EDATHARA HOUSE, KUTTANALLUR, OLLUR VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶15

4. SHAJU,

¶16

S/O. FRANCIS, KATTIPARAMBIL HOUSE,

¶17

ANJERI, OLLUR VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶18

5. RAVI,

¶19

S/O. VENKITESH, KODAKKATTIL HOUSE, VELLANISSERY, MADAKKATHARA, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶20

BY ADV. SRI.VISHNUPRASAD NAIR

¶21

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

¶22

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

¶23

2. WILSON, AGED 46 YEARS, S/O. DEVASSY, THOKKUDAM HOUSE, ANJERY DESOM, OLLUR VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶24

R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.PUSHPALATHA M.K R2 BY ADV. SRI.VINAY RAMDAS

¶25

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05-08-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶26

Crl.MC.No. 3806 of 2016

¶27

APPENDIX

¶28

PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES :

¶29

ANNEXURE A1 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIRST INFORMATION REPORT

¶30

ANNEXURE A2 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT. ANNEXURE A3 AFFIDAVIT OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT.

¶31

RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES :

NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.A.TO JUDGE

Msd.

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V., J

¶37

¶38

Crl.M.C. No. 3806 of 2016

¶39

- - - - Dated 5^th August, 2016

¶40

¶41

ORDER

¶42

1.The petitioners herein are accused No's 1 to 5 in C.C.No.1197 of 2012 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of 1^st Class III, Thrissur. They are being prosecuted for having committed offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 323 and 326 read with Section 149 of the IPC. The 2^nd respondent is the victim.

¶43

2.The instant petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the “Code”) banking on the ratio of the Judgment rendered by the Apex Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab ( 2012

¶44

(4) KLT 108) and a series of other cases which include Narinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and

¶45

anr. (2014) 6 SCC 466) and Yogendra Yadav and

¶46

others V State of Jharkhand (2014 (9) SCC 653 ) with a prayer to quash the above proceeding.

¶47

Crl.M.C. No.3806 of 2016 -2-

¶48

3.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 of the Code can be invoked de hors section 320 of the Code for recognizing out of court settlement for the purpose of quashing criminal proceedings. It is prayed that powers under Section 482 of the Code be invoked to quash the criminal proceedings.

¶49

4.It is submitted that the parties have reached an out of court settlement and there is no acrimony between them at present. All the disputes have been amicably resolved and they desire to live in peace and harmony. The 2^nd respondent has sworn to an affidavit wherein he asserts that he has no objection in terminating the proceedings.

¶50

5.The gist of the prosecution allegation is that on 26.7.2012 at 12 noon, the petitioners assaulted the de facto complainant and caused injuries.

¶51

6.The learned Public Prosecutor, on instructions, submits that no other cases are reported against the petitioners.

¶52

Crl.M.C. No.3806 of 2016 -3-

¶53

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

¶54

8.The victim has sworn to an affidavit wherein it is asserted that he has no objection in allowing the petition and in quashing the proceedings as all the disputes between the parties have been resolved and the parties are living in peace and harmony.

¶55

9.It appears to me 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.

¶56

Crl.M.C. No.3806 of 2016 -4-

¶57

10.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.

¶58

In the result, this petition is allowed. All further proceedings against the petitioners, who are the accused Nos. 1 to 5 in C.C.No.1197 of 2012 on the files of the Judicial Magistrate of 1^st Class III, Thrissur are quashed.

¶59

Sd/- RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V., JUDGE

¶60

kp/-6.8.16

Raju v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raju 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

C.v.Rappai Vs State of Kerala

Jamsheer Vs State of Kerala

Nihal Vs State of Kerala

G.Asokan Vs State of Kerala

Kamarudeen Vs State of Kerala

Girijan Vs State of Kerala