Allowed

Jobin Jacob v. Vishal S.Babu

Kerala HC31 Oct 2016Crl.MC/6342/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala, invoking inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC, allowed a petition to quash pending criminal proceedings against the petitioner following an amicable settlement between disputed parties. The court held that continuing prosecution would be an abuse of process contrary to the ends of justice.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed; criminal proceedings C.C.No.182 of 2016 and the final report against the petitioner were quashed.

Jobin Jacob Vs Vishal S.Babu — Bail and Remand | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶4

MONDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF OCTOBER 2016/9TH KARTHIKA, 1938

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 6342 of 2016 ()

¶6

AGAINST CC 182/2016 of J.M.F.C.,THIRUVALLA DATED CRIME NO. 348/2010 OF PULIKEEZHU POLICE STATION , PATHANAMTITTA

¶7

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

¶8

JOBIN JACOB, AGED 34 YEARS S/O.JACOB CHACKO, UZHUTHIL VEEDU, VALANGYAVATTAM MURI, KADAPRA VILLAGE, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.B.RENJITHKUMAR

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

1. VISHAL S.BABU, AGED 31 YEARS, S/O.C.R.SURESH BABU, ANNAKARI VEETTIL, KUMARAKAM KARA AND VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.685103

¶12

2. ANTO NITIN, AGED 29 YEARS,

¶13

S/O.ANTONY, VAKAYIL HOUSE, NATTASHERIKARA, PERUMPAYIKADAVU VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.685103

¶14

3. JOPAN, AGED 39 YEARS, S/O.MICHAEL, PUTHANPARAMBIL HOSUE, PALLIKONAM KARA, PUTHANANGADI VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.685101

¶15

4. STATE OF KERALA

¶16

REPRESENTED BY THE ASST. POLICE INSPECTOR, PULLIKIZHI POLICE STATION, THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,

¶17

ERNAKULAM-682 031.

¶18

R1-R3 BY ADV. SMT.AJITHALEKSHMI SABU R4 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. T.R. RENJITH

¶19

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 3110-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

Crl.MC.No. 6342 of 2016 ()

¶21

APPENDIX

¶22

PETITIONERS -----------	' ANNEXURES ------------
ANNEXURE-A1 PROSECUTION NO.722/2010	. TRUE COPY OF ON 25/9/2010 BEF .	THE ORE	FINAL REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE THE JFCMC, THRIUVALLA AS CC
ANNEXURE-A2 NO.722/2010	. TRUE COPY OF OF THE JFCMC, THRIU	THE VALL	JUDGMENT DATED 16/3/2016 IN CC A.
RESPONDENTS -----------	' ANNEXURES: ------------
R1: COPY NO.11464/20	OF AFFIDAVIT SWORN 16 (1ST RESPONDENT IN	BY CRL	THE 1ST PETITIONER IN CRL.MA .MC).
R2: COPY NO.11464/20	OF AFFIDAVIT SWORN 16 (2ND RESPONDENT IN	BY CRL	THE 2ND PETITIONER IN CRL.MA .MC).
R3: COPY NO.11464/20	OF AFFIDAVIT SWORN 16 (3RD RESPONDENT IN	BY CRL	THE 3RD PETITIONER IN CRL.MA .MC).

TRUE COPY

P.A. TO JUDGE.

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V., J

¶27

¶28

Crl.M.C. No. 6342 of 2016

¶29

- - - - Dated 31^st October, 2016

¶30

¶31

ORDER

¶32

1.This petition is filed under Section 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.

¶33

2.The petitioner was the 2^nd accused in C.C.No.722 of 2010

¶34

on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of 1^st Class, Thiruvalla. He along with another person were proceeded against for having committed offence punishable under Sections 447, 294 (b), 324 and 323 read with Section 34 of the IPC. The petitioner was not available for trial and the case against the 1^st accused was proceeded with and by Annexure A2 judgment dated 16.3.2016 he was found not guilty and was acquitted of all charges. The case against the petitioner herein was refiled and now pending as C.C.No.182 of 2016.

¶35

Crl.M.C. No.6342 of 2016 -2-

¶36

3.The learned counsel submits that thereafter the dispute between the petitioner herein and respondents 1 to 3 has been amicably resolved .

¶37

4.The learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 to 3 submits that the dispute between the parties has been amicably resolved. Attention of this Court is invited to the affidavits filed by them to buttress their 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.

¶38

5.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

¶39

Crl.M.C. No.6342 of 2016

¶40

-3-

¶41

against the petitioner.

¶42

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

¶43

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 :

¶44

“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.”

¶45

7.The aforesaid dictum stands reiterated by the Apex Court

¶46

in Narinder singh v. State of Punjab. (2014) 6 SCC

¶47

466, the pertinent observations which are as under:

¶48

Crl.M.C. No.6342 of 2016

¶49

-4-

¶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

(i) ends of justice, or

¶53

(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.

¶54

xxxxxxx

¶55

xxxxxxx

¶56

8.The offence committed by the petitioner cannot be said to

¶57

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.

¶58

Crl.M.C. No.6342 of 2016 -5-

¶59

9.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

In the result, this petition will stand allowed. AnnexureA1 final report and all proceedings pursuant thereto against the petitioner now pending as C.C.No.182 of 2016 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of 1^st Class, Thiruvalla are quashed.

¶61

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V., JUDGE

¶62

kp/-1.11.16

Jobin Jacob v. Vishal S.Babu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jobin Jacob v. Vishal S.Babu

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

Jose P.V Vs Maran Pandiyan

Nizasm Vs State of Kerala

Kattantakath Bava Vs the State of Kerala

Sujith .v Vs State of Kerala

K.S.Dinesh Vs the State of Kerala

Praveen Vs State of Kerala