Allowed

Praveen Kumar v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC9 Feb 2017Crl.MC/659/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed a criminal petition to quash proceedings arising from a physical altercation where the petitioner, a de facto complainant, sought premature termination. The dispute involved minor injuries by a bamboo stick, and the petitioner resolved the matter, justifying quashing.

What did the court decide?

The Crl.M.C. is allowed and all further proceedings in the underlying crime shall stand quashed.

Praveen Kumar Vs State of Kerala — Quashing and FIR | Kerala HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2017/20TH MAGHA, 1938

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 659 of 2017 ()

¶6

CRIME NO. 2400/2016 OF MANNUTHY POLICE STATION , THRISSUR

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/DE FACTO COMPLAINANT:

¶8

PRAVEEN KUMAR, AGED 31 YEARS, S/O.KUMAR, NJANEKKATTIL HOUSE, UNITED BAZAR, VALARKKAVU, OLLUR VILLAGE, P.O, TRICHUR DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.VISHNUPRASAD NAIR

¶10

RESPONDENT(S)/STATE AND ACCUSED:

¶11

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031. (CRIME 2400/2016 OF MANNUTHY POLICE STATION, THRISSUR DISTRICT).

¶12

2. NITHIN, AGED 25 YEARS, S/O.JOY, THATTIL VALLACHIRAKKARAN HOUSE, NEAR NEHRU NAGAR, KURIACHIRA, P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT - 680002

¶13

R2 BY ADV. SRI.VINAY RAMDAS R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.AMJAD ALI

¶14

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09-022017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

Crl.MC.No. 659 of 2017 ()

¶16

APPENDIX

¶17

PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES

¶18

----------------------------------------ANNEXURE A1- THE CERTIFIED COPY IF THE FIRST INFORMATION REPORT IN CRIME NO.2400/2016 OF MANNUTHUY POLICE DATED 25.12.2016

¶19

ANNEXURE A2- AFFIDAVIT OF THE PETITIONER/DE FACTO COMPLAINANT.

¶20

RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES -------------------------------------------NIL

//True Copy//

P.A. To Judge

SUNIL THOMAS, J.

Crl.M.C.No.659 of 2017

¶26

......................................................... Dated this, the 09^th day of February, 2017.

¶27

O R D E R

¶28

Petitioner herein is the de facto complainant in Crime No.2400/2016 of Mannuthy police station. He alleged that, on 25.12.2016 at 1.30 p.m., a verbal altercation arose with the second respondent and few other identifiable persons and he was attacked by them with a bamboo stick, causing fracture on his forearm. Crime was registered on the basis of the complaint lodged by him and the matter is being investigated. The de facto complainant has now approached this Court, stating that, he has resolved the dispute with the second respondent and other persons and has no objection in quashing the entire proceedings. Though in the FIS, it was stated that four persons had attacked, the learned counsel for the petitioner clarified that he had referred to the second respondent by name and the remaining accused are only identifiable persons. Their identity is not yet confirmed.

¶29

Crl.M.C.No.659 of 2017 : 2 :

¶30

The learned Public Prosecutor, on instructions, submitted that the petitioner is not involved in any other crime and that the matter has now been resolved.

¶31

Having considered the nature of allegations, nature of injuries caused, that the second respondent is not involved in any other crime and also their young age, I am inclined to take a lenient view and to quash the entire proceedings arising from the crime. This is especially since the de facto complainant himself has come forward seeking premature termination of his complaint and further proceedings.

¶32

In the result, the Crl.M.C. is allowed and all further proceedings in Crime No.2400/2016 of Mannuthy police station, shall stand quashed.

¶33

Sd/-

¶34

SUNIL THOMAS, JUDGE

¶35

Bb/10/02/2017

¶36

[True copy] P.A to Judge

Praveen Kumar v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Praveen Kumar 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Asharaf Vs State of Kerala

Rigil Vs State of Kerala

Mohanan Vs State of Kerala

Sarath Vs State of Kerala

Nejimon P.M Vs State of Kerala

Aboobackker Baseer Vs the State of Kerala