Allowed

Binu Krishnan v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC25 Nov 2016Crl.MC/6685/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a petition under Section 482 CrPC to quash criminal proceedings. The court quashed the FIR and subsequent proceedings against the petitioners, who were accused of offences under Sections 143, 144, 148, 294(b), 323, 324, and 326 r/w 149 IPC, finding that the dispute had been amicably settled to secure the ends of justice.

What did the court decide?

The FIR in Crime No.3413 of 2016 and all proceedings pursuant thereto against the petitioners are quashed.

Binu Krishnan Vs State of Kerala — 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

FRIDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2016/4TH AGRAHAYANA, 1938

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 6685 of 2016 ()

¶6

CRIME NO. 3413/2016 OF KARUNAAGAPALLY POLICE STATION , KOLLAM

¶7

PETITIONER(S):

¶8

BINU KRISHNAN AGED 34 YEARS, S/O.GOPALAKRISHNAN, KANNEL VEETTIL, PADA THEKKUM MURI, KARUNAGAPPALLY TALUK.

¶9

SHIBU AGED 32, S/O.LATHEEF, KAVIL VEEDU, NORTH KARUNAGAPPALLY, KARUNAGAPPALLY TALUK.

¶10

SHIHABUDEEN, AGED 32, S/O. JAMAL, KOTTAKUZHY VADAKKATHIL, PADA NORTH, KARUNAGAPPALLY, KARUNAGAPPALLY TALUK.

¶11

ABDUL SALAM AGED 32, KOTHILATHEKKETHIL, SVPO, KOZHIKODE, KARUNAGAPPALLY.

¶12

SAJEEV KUMAR AGED 40 YEARS, S/O.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, SHAJI MANZIL, CHANGANKULANGARA, VAVVAKKAVU P.O, OCHIRA.

¶13

BY ADV. SRI.RENJIT GEORGE

¶14

RESPONDENT(S):

¶15

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KEALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI 682 031.

¶16

VINEETH S AGED 27 YEARS, S/O.SASIDHARAN, GIREESH BHAVAN, VADAKKUMTHALA P.O, KARUNAGAPPALLY TALUK, 690 505.

¶17

R, BY ADV. SRI.SERGI JOSEPH THOMAS R BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, SRI. AMJAD ALI

¶18

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25-11-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

CONTD...

¶20

:2:

¶21

Crl.MC.No. 6685 of 2016 ()

¶22

APPENDIX

¶23

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ----------------------ANNEXURE A1. CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO. 3413/2016 OF KARUNAGAPPALLY POLICE STATION ANNEXURE A2. AN AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT STATING THE SETTLEMENT OF ALL THE DISPUTES.

¶24

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : NIL -----------------------

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE

SKS

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V, J

¶29

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

¶30

Crl.M.C. No. 6685 of 2016

¶31

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

¶32

Dated this the 25^th day of November, 2016

¶33

O R D E R

¶34

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.

¶35

2.The petitioners herein are the accused in Crime No. 3413 of 2016 of Karunagappally Police Station registered at the instance of the 2^nd respondent herein alleging offences punishable under Section 143, 144, 148, 294 (b), 323, 324, 326 r/w Section 149 of the IPC.

¶36

3.The crux of the prosecution allegation is that, on 17.09.2016, the petitioners herein formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and in prosecution of their common object, wrongfully restrained the 2^nd respondent and thereafter assaulted him causing injuries.

¶37

4.Heard the submissions advanced.

¶38

Crl.M.C. No. 6685 of 2016

¶39

¶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. No. 6685 of 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

¶49

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

¶50

466, the pertinent observations which are as under:

¶51

XXXXXXXXXXXX

¶52

29.2. When the parties have reached the settlement and on that basis petition for quashing the criminal

¶53

Crl.M.C. No. 6685 of 2016

¶54

¶55

proceedings is filed, the guiding factor in such cases would be to secure:

¶56

(i) ends of justice, or

¶57

(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.

¶58

xxxxxxx

¶59

xxxxxxx

¶60

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.

¶61

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

¶62

Crl.M.C. No. 6685 of 2016

¶63

¶64

the Code to quash the proceedings.

¶65

In the result, this petition will stand allowed. AnnexureA1 FIR in Crime No.3413 of 2016 of Karungappally Police Station and all proceedings pursuant thereto against the petitioners are quashed.

¶66

Sd/- RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V. JUDGE

¶67

SKS

¶68

//TRUE COPY//

¶69

P.A. TO JUDGE

Binu Krishnan v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Binu Krishnan 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

Pramod Kumar Vs Sub Inspector of Police

Rajan Vs the State of Kerala

Siva Prasad Vs State of Kerala

Chappan Puthiya Purayil Moosan Kunhi Vs State of Kerala

George Vs State

Farhad Kasim Rahman Vs State of Kerala