Allowed

Anil v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC3 Aug 2016Crl.MC/4207/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A single judge of the Kerala High Court quashed criminal proceedings under Section 326 IPC filed against the petitioner. The court held that the offence was personal and the parties had reached a settlement, allowing invocation of inherent powers to quash proceedings under Section 482 CrPC outside Section 320.

What did the court decide?

All further criminal proceedings against the petitioner under C.C. No. 308 of 2013 for offence under Section 326 IPC are quashed.

Anil Vs State of Kerala — Civil Procedure and Limitation | 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 3RD DAY OF AUGUST 2016/12TH SRAVANA, 1938

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 4207 of 2016 ()

¶6

CC.NO. 308/2013 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT -I, MAVELIKARA CRIME NO. 1036/2011 OF MAVELIKARA POLICE STATION,ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT

¶7

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

¶8

ANIL,

¶9

AGED 37 YEARS, PALLISHERIL HOUSE, PRAYIKKARA, MAVELIKARA VILLAGE.

¶10

BY ADV. SMT.ASHA ELIZABETH MATHEW

¶11

RESPONDENT(S)/STATE & CW1& CW2:

¶12

1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031

¶13

2. VALSALA KUMARI, AGED 57 YEARS, W/O SASIDHARAN PILLAI, PALAZHIYIL HOUSE, PRAYIKKARA MURI, MAVELIKARA VILLAGE-690 191

¶14

3. HARIKUMAR,

¶15

AGED 42 YEARS, S/O SANKARA PILLAI, PALAZHIYIL HOUSE, PRAYIKKARA MURI, MAVELIKARA VILLAGE-690 191

¶16

R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. AMJAD ALI R2 & R3 BY ADV. SRI.NIRMAL V NAIR

¶17

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03-08-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

sts

¶19

CRL.MC.NO.4207/2016

¶20

APPENDIX

¶21

PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:

¶22

ANNEX A1	CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT/CHARGE IN CRIME NO.1036/2011 OF MAVELIKARA POLICE STATION
ANNEX A2	AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT
ANNEX A3	AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT

¶23

RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES: NIL

/TRUE COPY/

P.A.TO JUDGE

sts

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN, V., J.

¶28

Crl.M.C. No.4207 of 2016

¶29

-----------------------------------------Dated this the 3^rd day of August, 2016

¶30

O R D E R

¶31

~~~~~~~~

¶32

1.The petitioner herein is sole accused in C.C.No.308 of

¶33

2013 of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-I, Mavelikkara. He is charged for having committed offence punishable under Section 326 of the IPC. The 3^rd respondent is the victim.

¶34

2.The instant petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code 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. State of Punjab and Another [2014) 6 SCC 466] and

¶35

Crl.M.C. No.4207 of 2016

¶36

-2-

¶37

Yogendra Yadav and others V State of Jharkhand

¶38

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

¶39

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 .

¶40

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 respondent Nos. 2 and 3 have sworn to separate affidavits wherein they assert that they have no objection in

¶41

Crl.M.C. No.4207 of 2016

¶42

-3-

¶43

terminating the proceedings.

¶44

5.The prosecution allegation is that on 25.12.2011 at about 6.00 p.m., the petitioner had assaulted the 3^rd respondent and caused injuries.

¶45

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

¶46

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

¶47

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.

¶48

-4-

¶49

Crl.M.C. No.4207 of 2016

¶50

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.

¶51

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.

¶52

Crl.M.C. No.4207 of 2016

¶53

-5-

¶54

In the result, this petition is allowed. All further proceedings against the petitioner, who is sole accused in C.C.No.308 of 2013 of the Judicial Magistrate of First

¶55

Class-I, Mavelikkara, are quashed.

¶56

Sd/-

¶57

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN, V. JUDGE

¶58

Ps/4/8/16

Anil v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anil 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

Alli, W/O.Mundengattu Bahuleyan Vs State of Kerala

Jayaprakash Vs State of Kerala

M.T.P.Ansar Vs the State of Kerala

M. Aravindakshan Nair Vs T.K. Radhakrishanan Nair

Ajeer Vs M.K.Sayed

Sujin P.P Vs Biju K.C.