Allowed

Akhil v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC20 Feb 2017Crl.MC/947/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed a criminal miscellaneous petition seeking quashing of proceedings under Indian Penal Code sections 143, 144, 147, 149, and 324. The court quashed the case citing voluntary dispute resolution, lack of objection from the complainant, and the petitioners' young ages.

What did the court decide?

Crl.M.C. allowed and further proceedings in C.C.No.1067 of 2013 stand quashed.

Akhil Vs State of Kerala — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Kerala HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS

¶4

MONDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2017/1ST PHALGUNA, 1938

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 947 of 2017 ()

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC 1067/2013 of J.M.F.C., ADOOR CRIME NO. 960/2012 OF ENATH POLICE STATION , PATHANAMTITTA

¶7

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 T0 5:

¶8

1. AKHIL

¶9

AGED 28 YEARS, S/O.GOPINADHAN NAIR @ VIKRAMAN PILLAI, JITHU BHAVAN (PARAVILA PUTHEN VEEDU) KADAMPANADU VILLAGE,

¶10

ADOOR, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.

¶11

2. AKSHAY

¶12

AGED 23 YEARS, S/O.CHANDRA MOHAN, THYPLASSERIL VEEDU, KADAMPANADU VILLAGE, ADOOR, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.

¶13

3. SANDEEP S.NAIR

¶14

AGED 28 YEARS, S/O.SURENDRAN NAIR, KURAMPALAYIL VEEDU,

¶15

KADAMPANADU VILLAGE, ADOOR, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.

¶16

4. SAMEESH

¶17

AGED 23 YEARS, S/O.MOHANAN PILLAI, KADUVINAL KIZHAKKETHIL (THALEKUTTIYIL VEEDU), KADAMPANADU VILLAGE, ADOOR, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.

¶18

5. JAYAPRAKASH

¶19

AGED 23 YEARS, S/O.CHANDRASEKHARAN NAIR, PALOTTUVEEDU,

¶20

KADAMPANADU VILLAGE, ADOOR, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.

¶21

BY ADV. SRI.K.K.SETHUKUMAR

¶22

RESPONDENTS/STATE:

¶23

1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031. (CC NO.1067 OF 2013 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, ADOOR, PATHANAMTHITTA DT).

¶24

CRL.M.C.947/17

¶25

2. ANOOP G.NAIR S/O.GOPINADHAN NAIR, AGED 23 YEARS, JITHU BHAVAN, MUDIPPURA, KADAMPANADU VILLAGE, ADOOR TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.

¶26

R2 BY ADV. SRI.DIPU.R BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR:SRI AMJAD ALI

¶27

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20-02-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶28

Crl.MC.No. 947 of 2017 ()

¶29

APPENDIX

¶30

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶31

ANNEXURE A1 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE CHARGE IN CC NO.1067 OF 2013 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, ADOOR.

¶32

ANNEXURE A2 AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT IN CC NO.1067/2013 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, ADOOR.

¶33

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:NIL

¶34

True Copy / P A to Judge

¶35

SUNIL THOMAS, J.

¶36

=================

¶37

Crl.M.C.No.947 of 2017

¶38

=================

¶39

Dated this the 20^th day of February, 2017

¶40

ORDER

¶41

Petitioners herein are accused Nos.1 to 5 in C.C.No.1067 of 2013 of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Adoor for offences punishable under sections 143, 144, 147, 149 and 324 of Indian Penal Code.

¶42

It was alleged by the prosecution that on 04.11.2012 at about 8.45p.m, accused formed into an unlawful assembly and attacked the de facto complainant. Crime was registered on the basis of the complaint and after investigation, final report was laid.

¶43

Petitioners have now approached this Court contending that the disputes have been voluntarily resolved and that the de facto complainant has no objection in quashing the proceedings. Learned counsel for the second respondent relied on the affidavit filed by the de facto complainant as Annexure-2 reiterating the settlement. He has expressed that he has no intention to proceed with the prosecution against the petitioners. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the fifth petitioner is involved in four other cases of similar nature. It was further submitted that the

¶44

Crl.M.C.947/17

¶45

¶46

allegation in those cases related to political issues.

¶47

Having considered the fact that petitioners 1 to 4 are not involved in any other crime, that the matter has been resolved now and also the comparatively young age of the petitioners, I feel that no purpose will be served by prosecuting them at this juncture.

¶48

In this result, Crl.M.C is allowed. All further proceedings in C.C.No.1067 of 2013 of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Adoor stand quashed.

¶49

Sd/-

¶50

SUNIL THOMAS Judge

¶51

Sbna/20/2/17

¶52

True Copy / P A to Judge

Akhil v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Akhil 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vijayakumar Vs State of Kerala

Shahabas Mohammed Vs the Senior Intelligence Officer

Mohammed Jabir Vs State of Kerala

Muhammed M.K. Vs State of Kerala

Murali C.P Vs State of Kerala

Junaid.N Vs State of Kerala