Allowed

Sujin P.P v. Biju K.C.

Kerala HC3 Aug 2016Crl.MC/4221/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed a petition under Section 482 CrPC to quash criminal proceedings for offences of voluntarily causing hurt and use of dangerous weapons by invoking inherent powers due to an out-of-court settlement and lack of acrimony, citing relevant Supreme Court precedents.

What did the court decide?

All further proceedings against the petitioners in C.C.No.1720 of 2014 at Thalassery are quashed.

Sujin P.P Vs Biju K.C. — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | 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. 4221 of 2016 ()

¶6

CC.NO. 1720/2014 OF CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, THALASSERY CRIME NO. 339/2014 OF CHAKKARAKKAL POLICE SATION, KANNUR DISTRICT

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED NO.1 TO 4:

¶8

1. SUJIN P.P., AGED 27 YEARS, S/O.SATHYAN, PUTHIYAPURAYIL (H), VELLACHAL, MAKRERI AMSOM, KANNUR THALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶9

2. SUBIN.P.P., AGED 29 YEARS, S/O.SATHYAN, PUTHIYAPURAYIL (H), VELLACHAL, MAKRERI AMSOM, KANNUR THALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶10

3. PARAMBAN BIJU,

¶11

AGED 33 YEARS, S/O.NARAYANAN, PUTHIYAPURAYIL (H), VELLACHAL, MAKRERI AMSOM, KANNUR THALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶12

4. SHANID.P.K., AGED 28 YEARS, S/O.ABDULKHADER, "SHANIBAS", KUNHIMANGALAM AMSOM, ANGADI, KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶13

BY ADVS.SRI.ZUBAIR PULIKKOOL SRI.P.S.BINU

¶14

RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT:

¶15

1. BIJU K.C., AGED 33 YEARS, S/O.KANNAN NAIR, KARINKUNNUMMAL (H),

¶16

BAVOD, MAKRERI AMSOM, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN- 670 622.

¶17

2/-

¶18

-2-

¶19

CRL.MC.NO.4221/2016

¶20

2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN -682 031.

¶21

R1 BY ADV. SMT.A.P.RUFAIJA R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. AMJAD ALI

¶22

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

¶23

sts

¶24

Crl.MC.No. 4221 of 2016 ()

¶25

APPENDIX

¶26

PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES:

¶27

ANNEXURE-I: COPY OF THE FIR & POLICE CHARGE IN CRIME NO.339/2014 OF CHAKKARAKKAL POLICE STATION.

¶28

ANNEXURE-II: THE ORIGINAL COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT OF 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶29

RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES:

NIL

/TRUE COPY/

P.A.TO JUDGE

sts

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN, V., J.

¶35

Crl.M.C. No.4221 of 2016

¶36

Dated this the 3^rd day of August, 2016

¶37

O R D E R

¶38

~~~~~~~~

¶39

1.The petitioners herein are the accused Nos. 1 to 4 in C.C.No.1720 of 2014 of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Thalassery. They are charged for having committed offence punishable under Sections 341, 323 and 326 read with 34 of the IPC. The 1^st respondent is the victim.

¶40

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 anr. (2014) 6 SCC 466) and Yogendra Yadav and others V State of Jharkhand

¶41

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

¶42

Crl.M.C. No.4221 of 2016

¶43

-2-

¶44

proceeding.

¶45

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 .

¶46

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 1^st respondent has sworn to an affidavit wherein he asserts that he has no objection in terminating the proceedings.

¶47

5.The crux of the prosecution allegation is that on 30.3.2014 at about 10 p.m, the petitioners had wrongfully restrained

¶48

Crl.M.C. No.4221 of 2016 -3-

¶49

the de facto complainant and attacked him with iron rods.

¶50

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

¶51

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

¶52

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 .

¶53

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

¶54

Crl.M.C. No.4221 of 2016 -4-

¶55

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

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.

¶57

In the result, this petition is allowed. All further proceedings against the petitioners, who are the accused Nos. 1 to 4 in C.C.No.1720 of 2014 of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Thalassery are quashed.

¶58

Sd/-

¶59

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN, V. JUDGE

¶60

Ps/5/8/16

Sujin P.P v. Biju K.C.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sujin P.P v. Biju K.C.

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

Anil Vs State of Kerala