Allowed

Eby Alphonse v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC15 Nov 2016Crl.MC/5910/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala exercised its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC to quash criminal proceedings against four accused charged under Sections 323, 341, and 34 IPC. The court emphasized the amicable resolution, lack of grave imputations, and the resulting peace between parties.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed; proceedings in C.C. No.1061 of 2013 and Annexure-2 (final report) against petitioners quashed.

Eby Alphonse Vs State of Kerala — Maintenance and Alimony | 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 15TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2016/24TH KARTHIKA, 1938

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 5910 of 2016 ()

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC 1061/2013 of J.F.C.M.-I,PATHANAMTHITTA CRIME NO. 926/2013 OF ARANMULA POLICE STATION , PATHANAMTITTA

¶7

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 TO 4:

¶8

1. ABY ALPHONSE

¶9

AGED 25 YRS, S/O. ALPHONSE, NIRAVIL PULOOR HOUSE, KURIYANNOOR, THOTTAPPUZHASSERY, ARANMULA, KOZHENCHERY TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DIST.

¶10

2. SUDHI SURESH

¶11

AGED 25 YRS., S/O. SURESH, CHARUVIL PUTHEN VEEDU, MALLAPPUZHASSERY, KARAMVELI, ARANMULA, KOZHENCHERY TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DIST.

¶12

3. SHYAM CHANDRAN

¶13

AGED 25 YRS, S/O. RAMACHAN, CHANDRA BHAVAN, KAITHACKAL, NARANGANAM WEST, NARANGANAM, KOZHENCHERY TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DIST.

¶14

4. ANOOP KUMAR

¶15

AGED 25 YEARS, S/O. P.K.KUMARAN, THANUVELI THECKETHIL, PATTACKALA, KUMARAMM PEROOR, KOZHENCHERY TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DIST 688028.

¶16

BY ADV. SMT.L.SMITHARAJ

¶17

RESPONDENT/DE-FACTO COMPLAINANT:

¶18

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

¶19

2. SUDHEEP M.S. AGED ABOUT 25 YRS, S/O. SREEDHARAN, KADAMANNIL HOUSE, KUMBAZHA VADACK, KOZHENCHERY TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DIST, PIN-688028.

¶20

R2 BY ADV. SRI.M.MANOJ KUMAR BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.T.R.RENJITH

¶21

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15-112016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

Crl.MC.No. 5910 of 2016 ()

¶23

APPENDIX

¶24

PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES ----------------------ANNEXURE 1 TRUE COPY OF THE F.I.R. IN CRIME NO. 926/2013 OF ARANMULA POLICE STATION. ANNEXURE 2 TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT FILED IN CRIME NO. 926/13 OF ARANMULA POLICE STATION. ANNEXURE 3 AFFIDAVIT DATED ON 02-08-2016.

¶25

RESPONDENT(S)'ANNEXURES -----------------------

NIL

/TRUE COPY/

VPS PS TO JUDGE

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V, J

¶30

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

¶31

Crl.M.C. No.5910 of 2016

¶32

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

¶33

Dated this the 15^th day of November, 2016

¶34

O R D E R

¶35

1.This petition is filed under S.482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code) with a prayer to invoke the extraordinary inherent powers and to quash the pending criminal proceedings.

¶36

2.The petitioners herein are the accused Nos.1 to 4 in C.C. No.1061 of 2013 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-I, Pathanamthitta. They stand indicted for offences punishable under sections 323, 341 read with 34 of the IPC.

¶37

3.The prosecution allegation is that on 12.7.2013 at 11.50 a.m., the petitioners in furtherance of their common intention wrongfully restrained the 2^nd respondent and assaulted him causing injuries.

¶38

Crl.M.C.5910/2016 2

¶39

4.Heard the submissions advanced.

¶40

5.The learned counsel appearing for the 2^nd respondent submits that the dispute between the parties has been amicably resolved. Attention of this Court is invited to the affidavit filed by him to buttress his submission. It is urged that the dispute is purely personal in nature and would not affect public peace or tranquility. Summing up it is prayed that the criminal proceedings be terminated to promote peace and harmony.

¶41

6.The learned Public Prosecutor after getting instructions has expressed his reservations in the matter of quashing the proceedings on the basis of settlement. It is submitted that the invocation of powers under Section 482 of the Code in a case of this nature is not warranted. However, it is submitted that no other cases are reported against the petitioners.

¶42

7.I have considered the submissions .

¶43

8.In Gian singh v. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303

¶44

Crl.M.C.5910/2016

¶45

¶46

Apex Court has laid down 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. It was observed as follows :

¶47

“61. In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceedings or continuation of criminal proceedings would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and the wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in the affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceedings.”

¶48

9.The aforesaid dictum stands reiterated by the Apex Court in Narinder singh v. State of Punjab. (2014) 6 SCC

¶49

466, the pertinent observations which are as under:

¶50

XXXXXXXXXXXX

¶51

29.2. When the parties have reached the settlement and on that basis petition for quashing the criminal proceedings is filed, the guiding factor in such cases would be to secure:

¶52

Crl.M.C.5910/2016

¶53

¶54

(i) ends of justice, or

¶55

(ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any court. While exercising the power the High Court is to form an opinion on either of the aforesaid two objectives.

¶56

xxxxxxx

¶57

xxxxxxx

¶58

10.The offence committed by the petitioners cannot be said to be grave and serious having ingredients of extreme mental depravity. It also does not appear that the offence in this case will have a serious impact on the society .It is felt that quashing of proceedings on account of compromise would bring about peace and secure the ends of justice. Even otherwise , persisting with the prosecution would be nothing but a waste of time as the prospects of conviction would be bleak.

¶59

11.Having considered all the relevant circumstances, I am of the considered view that this Court will be well justified in invoking its extra ordinary powers under Section 482 of the Code to quash the proceedings.

¶60

Crl.M.C.5910/2016 5

¶61

In the result, this petition will stand allowed. Annexure-2 final report and all proceedings pursuant thereto against the petitioners in C.C. No.1061 of 2013 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-I, Pathanamthitta are

¶62

quashed.

¶63

Sd/RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V. JUDGE

¶64

vps

Eby Alphonse v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Eby Alphonse 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

Babu Vs State of Kerala

Rakesh Vs the Sub Inspector of Police, Karamana

Hashim Vs State of Kerala

Salam P.K. Vs State of Kerala

Vysakh Vs State of Kerala

K. Firdouz Vs State of Kerala