Allowed

Reghu N.Raman v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC1 Mar 2017Crl.MC/1142/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed a Criminal Miscellaneous Petition for quashing of proceedings relating to offences under Sections 451, 323, 294(b), and 427 of the Indian Penal Code. The court held the offences were private in nature and, given that the matter was settled, quashed the FIR and further proceedings to promote harmony.

What did the court decide?

Annexure A1 (Final Report) and all further proceedings in L.P.No.218/2008 in C.C.No.1897 of 2006 were quashed.

Reghu N.Raman Vs the State of Kerala — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Kerala HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF MARCH 2017/10TH PHALGUNA, 1938

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 1142 of 2017 ()

¶6

LP 218/2008 of J.M.F.C.-I,PATHANAMTHITTA CRIME NO. 971/2006 OF PATHANAMTHITTA POLICE STATION , PATHANAMTITTA

¶7

PETITIONER/SOLE ACCUSED:

¶8

REGHU N.RAMAN, AGED 41 YEARS, S/O.KUNJU RAMAN, RESIDING AT NEDUVELIMURIYIL VEEDU, PUTHENPEEDIKA, PRAYANALI MURI, OMALLOOR VILLAGE, KOZHENCHERRY TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.MANU RAMACHANDRAN

¶10

RESPONDENTS/STATE, DEFACTO COMPLAINANT & INJURED PERSON:

¶11

THE STATE OF KERALA, THROUGH SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PATHANAMTHITTA POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,

¶12

HIGH COURT OF KERALA

¶13

KOCHU KUNJU,

¶14

AGED 69 YEARS, S/O.NARAYANAN, RESIDING AT KITTIYIL VEETIL, PUTHENPEEDIKA, AIMALIMEKKU MURI, OMALLOOR VILLAGE, KOZHENCHERRY TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT

¶15

PODIAMMA,

¶16

AGED 81 YEARS, W/O.NARAYANAN, RESIDING AT KITTIYIL VEETIL, PUTHENPEEDIKA, AIMALIMEKKU MURI, OMALLOOR VILLAGE, KOZHENCHERRY TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT

¶17

R2,3 BY ADV. SRI.M.KIRANLAL

¶18

R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, SMT. M K PUSHPALATHA

¶19

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01-032017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

Crl.MC.No. 1142 of 2017 ()

¶21

APPENDIX

¶22

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

¶23

ANNEXURE A1 : THE TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO.971/2006 OF PATHANAMTHITTA POLICE STATION NOW PENDING AS

¶24

L.P.NO.218/2008 ON THE FILES OF JFCM-I, PATHANAMTHITTA

¶25

ANNEXURE A2 : THE ORIGINAL OF THE AFFIDAVIT DATED 6.2.2017 SWORN BY THE DE-FACTO COMPLAINANT/2ND RESPONDENT

¶26

ANNEXURE A3 : THE ORIGINAL OF THE AFFIDAVIT DATED 6.2.2017 SWORN BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT/INJURED

¶27

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL

¶28

// True Copy //

¶29

PA to Judge

¶30

B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, J.

¶31

¶32

Crl.M.C.No.1142 of 2017

¶33

- - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 1^st day of March 2017

¶34

O R D E R

¶35

The petitioner is the accused in L.P.No.218/2008 in

¶36

C.C.No.1897 of 2006 on the files of the court below.

¶37

The offences alleged as per Annexure-A1 final

¶38

report are the offences under Sections 451, 323, 294(b) and

¶39

427 I.P.C.

¶40

Respondent Nos.2 and 3 are the victims in this

¶41

case.

¶42

Heard.

¶43

Respondent Nos.2 and 3 filed separate affidavits

¶44

namely Annexures A2 and A3 respectively, stating that the

¶45

Crl.M.C.1142/2017

¶46

: 2 :

¶47

matter has been settled between the parties and hence, they have no further grievance against the petitioner. Considering the nature of the offences alleged against the petitioner, I am of the view that the said offences are offences private in nature. Since the matter has been settled by the parties, I am of the view that the quashing of the offences will lead to harmony and peace. In the said circumstances, I am inclined to quash Annexure A1 final report and all further proceedings in L.P.No.218/2008 in C.C.No.1897 of 2006 on the files of the court below to

¶48

meet the ends of justice and accordingly, I order so.

¶49

In the result, this M.C. stands allowed as above.

¶50

Sd/-

¶51

B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR,

¶52

JUDGE

¶53

dl/1.3..2017

Reghu N.Raman v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Reghu N.Raman v. the 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

Manoj U. Vs Jisna v .K.

Satish Unnikrishnan Vs State of Kerala

Sashikumaran.M. Vs State of Kerala

Siju Raj Vs State of Kerala

Wilson T George Vs State of Kerala

Amalkumar Vs State of Kerala