Allowed

Arun @ Manish v. Arun Prathapan

Kerala HC23 Feb 2016Crl.MC/840/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed criminal trial proceedings under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341 and 308 IPC. The court held that the dispute was amicably settled by the de facto complainant, rendering the Section 308 IPC charge unsustainable as no purpose would be served in further proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Crl.M.C. No. 840 of 2016 allowed; Annexure-A2 Final Report and all further proceedings in SC No.599/2013 quashed.

Arun @ Manish Vs Arun Prathapan — Cheating and Forgery | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.KEMAL PASHA

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF FEBRUARY 2016/4TH PHALGUNA, 1937

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 840 of 2016 ()

¶6

SC. NO. 599/2013 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSION COURT-I, PATHANAMTHITTA.

¶7

PETITIONER/ACCUSED 1 TO 5:

¶8

1. ARUN @ MANISH, AGED 27 YEARS, S/O.MANOHARAN, ARUN NIVAS, VETTOOR, KONNI THAZHAM VILLAGE, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.

¶9

2. AJITH @ KANNAN, AGED 25 YEARS, S/O.MANOHARAN, ARUN NIVAS, VETTOOR, KONNI THAZHAM VILLAGE, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.

¶10

3. SUBHASH, AGED 26 YEARS, S/O.SOMAN, IRINJELIL HOUSE, VETTOOR, KONNI THAZHAM VILLAGE, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.

¶11

4. HARISH @ ANI, AGED 27 YEARS, S/O.ARJUNAN PILLAI, VETTOOR, KONNI THAZHAM VILLAGE, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.

¶12

5. PUSHPALAL, AGED 36 YEARS, S/O.SIVASANKARAN, VETTOOR, KONNI THAZHAM VILLAGE, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.

¶13

BY ADV. SRI.M.T.SURESHKUMAR.

¶14

RESPONDENT/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT & STATE:

¶15

1. ARUN PRATHAPAN, AGED 27 YEARS, S/O. PRATHAPASIMHAN, ASARIPPARAMBIL HOUSE, VETTOOR KONNI THAZHAM VILLAGE, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT-689 691.

¶16

2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN-682 031.

¶17

R1 BY ADV. SMT.T.J.SEEMA.

¶18

R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.SAREENA GEORGE.

¶19

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23-02-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

rs.

¶21

Crl.MC.No. 840 of 2016

¶22

APPENDIX

¶23

PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:-

¶24

ANNEXURE-A1 TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.293/2009 OF PATHANAMTHITTA POLICE STATION DATED 01/04/2009.

¶25

ANNEXURE-A2 TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT DATED 30/05/2009 IN CRIME NO.293/2009 OF PATHANAMTHITTA POLICE STATION, BEFORE THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-II, PATHANAMTHITTA.

¶26

RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES:- NIL.

//TRUE COPY//

P.S. TO JUDGE

rs.

B. KEMAL PASHA, J.

¶31

¶32

Crl.M.C. No.840 of 2016

¶33

Dated this the 23^rd day of February, 2016

¶34

O R D E R

¶35

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

¶36

Petitioners are the accused in SC No.599/2013 of

¶37

the Additional Sessions Court-I, Pathanamthitta, which has arisen from Crime No.293/2009 of Konni Police Station, for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341 and 308 read with Section 149 IPC.

¶38

It seems that the matter has been amicably

¶39

settled between the petitioners and the de facto complainant, who is the 1^st respondent herein.

¶40

The 1^st respondent has filed an affidavit affirming

¶41

that the matter has been amicably settled between him and the petitioners and presently, he has no complaints against the petitioners. The records clearly reveal that there are no sufficient ingredients to bring out an offence under Section

¶42

308 IPC. No criminal antecedents have been reported

¶43

Crl.M.C.840/2016

¶44

: 2 :

¶45

against the petitioners. No purpose would be served in proceeding with the matter further. Matters being so, Annexure-A2 final report and all further proceedings against the petitioners in SC No.599/2013 of the Additional Sessions Court-I, Pathanamthitta, which has arisen from Crime No.293/2009 of Konni Police Station, can be quashed.

¶46

In the result, this Crl.M.C. is allowed and Annexure-A2 final report and all further proceedings against the petitioners in SC No.599/2013 of the Additional Sessions Court-I, Pathanamthitta, which has arisen from Crime No.293/2009 of Konni Police Station, are quashed.

¶47

Sd/- (B.KEMAL PASHA, JUDGE)

¶48

aks/23/02

¶49

// True Copy //

¶50

PA to Judge

Arun @ Manish v. Arun Prathapan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arun @ Manish v. Arun Prathapan

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

Pradeep Vs State of Kerala

Liju Vs State of Kerala

K.Rajin Vs State of Kerala

Anitha P. Vs State of Kerala

Franklin Vs State of Kerala

Pranesh K. Vs State of Kerala