Partly allowed

Jagadeesh v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC10 Feb 2016Crl.MC/615/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed this Criminal Misc. Case in part upon finding that the parties had amicably settled the dispute. The court quashed all further proceedings against the petitioner for the offence under Section 379 IPC but directed the petitioner to compound the remaining offences under the Mines and Mineral (Regulation of Development) Act, 1957.

What did the court decide?

Allowed in part; quashed all further proceedings against the petitioner under Section 379 IPC in Crime No.497/2015.

Jagadeesh 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 B.KEMAL PASHA

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2016/21ST MAGHA, 1937

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 615 of 2016 ()

¶6

CRIME NO. 497/2015 OF HOSDURG POLICE STATION, KASARGOD DISTRICT

¶7

PETITIONER/ACCUSED :

¶8

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

¶9

JAGADEESH, AGED 42 YEARS, S/O. KARUNAKARAN, KARTHIKA HOUSE, KANHANGAD P.O., KASARAGOD DISTRICT

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.A.ARUNKUMAR

¶11

RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT/STATE :

¶12

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

¶13

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

¶14

2. T.V. SURESHAN, AGED 35 YEARS, S/O.THONATH RAMAN @ KUNHIRAMAN PADANNAKKAD KANHANGAD VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT 671 121

¶15

3. VANAJA K., AGED 41 YEARS, D/O.M.K.NARAYANAN, UNDINOOR, UDINOOR P.O. 671 310, HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.

¶16

R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. MAYA

¶17

R2 & R3 BY ADV. SRI.P.K.SUBHASH

¶18

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10-02-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

¶20

Crl.MC.No. 615 of 2016 ()

¶21

APPENDIX

¶22

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶23

ANNX.A1: -	A TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.497 OF 2015 OF HOSDURG POLICE STATION KASARAGOD.
ANNX.AII: -	A TRUE COPY OF THE JENM SALE DEED NO.1069 OF 2011 OF SRO, HOSDURG.
ANNX.AIII: -	A TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN TO BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT ENDORSING THE FACTUM OF SETTLEMENT.
ANNX.AIV: -	A TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN TO BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT ENDORSING THE FACTUM OF SETTLEMENT.

¶24

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : NIL.

//TRUE COPY//

P.S. TO JUDGE

B. KEMAL PASHA, J.

¶29

................................................................ CRL.M.C. No. 615 of 2016

¶30

............................................................... Dated this the 10^th day of February, 2016

¶31

O R D E R

¶32

Petitioner is the accused in Crime No.497/2015 of the Hosdurg Police Station, Kasaragod registered for the offences punishable under Sections 379 of IPC and Sections 21(1), 4(1)(A) of Mines and Mineral(Regulation of Development) Act, 1957.

¶33

It seems that the matter has been amicably settled between the parties. The second respondent, who is the defacto complainant, and the third respondent, who is the affected party, have filed Annexure AIII and Annexure AIV affidavits affirming that the matter has been amicably settled between them and the petitioners and they have no complaints against the petitioners.

¶34

CRL.M.C.No. 615 of 2016

¶35

-: 2 :-

¶36

When the matter has been amicably settled

¶37

between the parties, no purpose would be served in proceeding with the matter for the offence punishable under Section 379 IPC. As far a the other offences are concerned, the petitioner has to compound the offence as per law. Matters being so, the settlement arrived at between the parties with regard to the offence under Section 379 IPC is accepted and all further proceedings before the court below as against the petitioner under Section 379 IPC alone in Crime No.497/2015 of the Hosdurg Police Station can be quashed.

¶38

In the result, this Crl.M.C. is allowed in part and all further proceedings before the court below as against the petitioner under Section 379 IPC alone in Crime No.497/2015 of the Hosdurg Police Station are hereby quashed.

¶39

Sd/- B. KEMAL PASHA, JUDGE.

¶40

ul/-

¶41

[True copy] P.S. to Judge

Jagadeesh v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jagadeesh 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Musthafa Vs State of Kerala

Binoj Vs State of Kerala

Sujith Vs the State of Kerala

Ramanan Vs State of Kerala

Alshamari Sultan Fahad Vs State of Kerala

Sunil Vs State of Kerala