Allowed

Subaida v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC28 Jul 2016Crl.MC/4037/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal merge case, the High Court of Kerala, invoking inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC following Apex Court precedents, quashed proceedings against three accused for assault. The court relied on the victim's affidavit of settlement and determined the offence was personal in nature with remote conviction prospects.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of all further proceedings against the petitioners in C.P.No.12 of 2016.

Subaida 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

THURSDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF JULY 2016/6TH SRAVANA, 1938

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 4037 of 2016 ()

¶6

CP 12/2016 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-III,

¶7

THRISSUR.

¶8

CRIME NO.1174/2015 OF PEECHI POLICE STATION, THRISSUR.

¶9

PETITIONER(S)/PETITIONERS:

¶10

1.SUBAIDA, AGED 53 YEARS,

¶11

D/O.SAYOOTTI, KARUPPAMVEETTIL, VATTAKKALLU DESOM, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶12

2.KHADEEJA @ KAUSU, AGED 47 YEARS,

¶13

D/O. SAYOOTTI, KARUPPAMVEETTIL, VATTAKKALLU DESOM, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶14

3.LAILA, AGED 38 YEARS,

¶15

D/O.SAYOOTTI, KARUPPAMVEETTIL, VATTAKKALLU DESOM, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶16

BY ADVS.SRI.M.V.BOSE SRI.VINOD MADHAVAN

¶17

RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS:

¶18

1.STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM.

¶19

2.BALAN, AGED 79 YEARS, S/O.KUTTAN, ATHIKAYIL HOUSE, MUDIKODU DESOM, THRISSUR DISTRICT -680 652.

¶20

R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.ROY THOMAS

¶21

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28-07-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

mbr/

¶23

Crl.MC.No. 4037 of 2016 ()

¶24

APPENDIX

¶25

PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES:

¶26

ANNEXURE A1 : CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN C.P 12/2016 ON THE FILES OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT III, THRISSUR.

¶27

ANNEXURE A2 : TRUE COPY OF AFFIDAVIT DT. 25/04/2016 SWORN BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT

¶28

ANNEXURE A3 : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DT. 09/02/2016 IN CRL MC NO 751/2016 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT.

¶29

RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES: NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.S. TO JUDGE

mbr/

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN, V., J.

¶34

Crl.M.C. No.4037 of 2016

¶35

Dated this the 28^th day of July, 2016

¶36

O R D E R

¶37

~~~~~~~~

¶38

1.The petitioners herein are the accused Nos. 1 to 3 in C.P.No.12 of 2016 of the Judicial Magistrate of First ClassIII, Thrissur. They are charged with for having committed offence punishable under Sections 323 and 308 read with

¶39

section 34 of the IPC. The 2^nd respondent is the victim.

¶40

2.The instant petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code

¶41

of Criminal Procedure banking on the ratio of the Judgment rendered by the Apex Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab ( 2012 (4) KLT 108) and a series of other cases which include Narinder Singh and others v.

¶42

State of Punjab and anr. (2014) 6 SCC 466) and

¶43

Yogendra Yadav and others V State of Jharkhand

¶44

(2014 (9) SCC 653 ) with a prayer to quash the above proceeding.

¶45

Crl.M.C. No.4037/2016 -2-

¶46

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

¶47

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.

¶48

5.The prosecution allegation is that on 6.8.2015 at about 1.50 p.m., the petitioners had assaulted the 2^nd respondent and caused injuries.

¶49

6.The learned Public Prosecutor, on instructions, submits

¶50

Crl.M.C. No.4037/2016 -3-

¶51

that no other cases are reported against the petitioners.

¶52

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

¶53

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 disputed between the parties have been resolved and the parties are living in peace and harmony. The pendency of the Criminal proceeding will act as a hindrance to the peace and harmony which prevail between the parties.

¶54

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

¶55

Crl.M.C. No.4037/2016 -4-

¶56

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.

¶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 3 in C.P.No.12 of 2016 of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-III, Thrissur are quashed.

¶59

Sd/-

¶60

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN, V. JUDGE

¶61

Ps/28/7/16

Subaida v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Subaida 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

Shagen N. Vs State of Kerala

Umesh Vs State of Kerala

Mathew Vs State of Kerala

Abdul Hameed Vs the State of Kerala

George Thomas Vs the State of Kerala

Aslam Vs State of Kerala