Allowed

Roopak v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC14 Dec 2016Crl.MC/7918/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala invoked its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC to quash the pending criminal proceedings against the appellant accused. Relying on the precedent that courts can terminate proceedings upon amicable resolution to secure justice and prevent abuse of process, the court held that quashing was warranted as the dispute was personal, no other cases were reported against the pe

What did the court decide?

All pending proceedings pursuant to C.C. No. 353 of 2012 against the petitioners are quashed.

Roopak 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 RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2016/23RD AGRAHAYANA, 1938 Crl.MC.No. 7918 of 2016 ()

¶5

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC 353/2012 of J.M.F.C., PARAVOOR DATED CRIME NO. 250/2012 OF PARAVOOR POLICE STATION , KOLLAM

¶6

PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED:-:

¶7

ROOPAK, AGED 21, S/O.DILEEP KUMAR, SREEKRISHNA BHAVANAM, NEAR GANDHI MEMORIAL LIBRARY, KALAKKODU CHERRY, POOTHAKKULAM VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 2. BIGEESH, AGED 21 YEARS, S/O.B.B.BABU, NEAR CASHEW FACTORY, EEZHAMVILA, POOTHAKKULAM VILLAGE, NOW RESIDING AT CHAMAVILA VEEDU, KALAKKODU. 3. SREEJITH, AGED 19 YEARS, S/O.SUSEELAN, S.S.BHAVANAM, NEAR GANDHI MEMORIAL LIBRARY, KALAKKODU CHERRY, POOTHAKKULAM VILLAGE. 4. SUJITH, AGED 22, S.S.BHAVANAM, NEAR GANDHI MEMORIAL LIBRARY, KALAKKODU CHERRY, POOTHAKKULAM VILLAGE. BY ADVS.SRI.M.RAJENDRAN NAIR SMT.M.SANTHY RESPONDENT(S)/STATE & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:-: -------------------------------------------1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, KOCHI. 2. JEEVAN, AGED 27 YEARS, S/O.SUDHAKARAN, PRAMEELA MANDIRAM, NEAR HOSPITAL JUNCTION, KALAKKODU, POOTHAKKULAM, KOLLAM DISTRICT - 691 302. 3. FAIZAL, S/O.UBAID, AGED 25, MUKKATTUVILA, NEAR HOSPITAL JUNCTION, KALAKKODU, POOTHAKKULAM, KOLLAM DISTRICT - 691 302. R2-3 BY ADV. SRI.ABRAHAM P.GEORGE R BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SRI.T.R.RENJITH

¶8

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14-12-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶9

CONTD....

¶10

:2:

¶11

Crl.MC.No. 7918 of 2016 () ---------------------------

¶12

APPENDIX

¶13

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ----------------------ANNEXURE A1. TRUE COPY OF CHARGE SHEET IN C.C.353/2012 (CRIME NO.250/12 OF PARAVOOR POLICE STATION. ANNEXURE A2. TRUE COPY OF F.I.R IN CRIME NO.250/2012 OF PARAVOOR POLICE STATION. ANNEXURE A3. AFFIDAVIT OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 13.11.2016. ANNEXURE A4. AFFIDAVIT OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 13.11.2016. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : NIL -----------------------

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE

SKS

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V, J

¶18

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

¶19

Crl.M.C. No. 7918 of 2016

¶20

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

¶21

Dated this the 14^th day of December, 2016

¶22

O R D E R

¶23

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.

¶24

2.The petitioners herein are the accused Nos. 1 to 4 in C.C. No. 353 of 2012 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Paravoor. In the aforesaid case, they face indictment under Sections 341, 324, 326 r/w Section 34 of the IPC.

¶25

3.The prosecution allegation is that on 11.02.2012 at 9.30 p.m, the petitioners herein wrongfully restrained the respondents 2 and 3 and thereafter assaulted them with an iron rod, causing bodily injuries.

¶26

Crl.M.C. No. 7918 of 2016

¶27

¶28

4.Heard the submissions advanced.

¶29

5.The learned counsel appearing for the party respondents 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 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.

¶30

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.

¶31

7.I have considered the submissions .

¶32

Crl.M.C. No. 7918 of 2016

¶33

¶34

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

¶35

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 :

¶36

“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.”

¶37

9.The aforesaid dictum stands reiterated by the Apex Court

¶38

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

¶39

466, the pertinent observations which are as under:

¶40

XXXXXXXXXXXX

¶41

29.2. When the parties have reached

¶42

Crl.M.C. No. 7918 of 2016

¶43

¶44

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

¶45

(i) ends of justice, or

¶46

(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.

¶47

xxxxxxx

¶48

xxxxxxx

¶49

10.The offence committed by the petitioners cannot be said

¶50

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.

¶51

Crl.M.C. No. 7918 of 2016

¶52

¶53

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.

¶54

In the result, this petition will stand allowed. AnnexureA1 final report and all proceedings pursuant thereto against the petitioners now pending as C.C. No. 353 of 2012 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Paravoor are quashed.

¶55

Sd/RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V. JUDGE

¶56

SKS

¶57

//TRUE COPY//

¶58

P.A. TO JUDGE

Roopak v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Roopak 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

Ali Muhammed Vs State of Kerala

Bindhu John Vs State of Kerala

Binoy Jacob Vs the State of Kerala

Ramlath Vs Saithalavi

Inspector of Police, CBI Scb Vs Prakasan @ Vettukuttan

K. Muthaleeb Vs State of Kerala