Allowed

Rajan v. Sugathakumar

Kerala HC10 Apr 2018Crl.MC/1576/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Criminal Miscellaneous Case sought to quash ongoing criminal proceedings under Sections 447, 341, 354, 326, and 307 IPC against the petitioner. The High Court considered a settlement between parties and the de facto complainant's affidavit. The Court invoked its inherent powers to condone the serious allegations due to the settlement, victim's assurance of fairness, and the petitioner's clean

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Miscellaneous Case was allowed and the proceedings in S.C. No.298/2011 were quashed.

Rajan Vs Sugathakumar — Quashing and FIR | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF APRIL 2018 / 20TH CHAITHRA, 1940

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 1576 of 2018

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN SC 298/2011 of I ADDL. ASST. SESSIONS COURT, THRISSUR CRIME NO. 137/2010 OF CHELAKKARA POLICE STATION

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED

¶8

RAJAN AGED 40 YEARS, S/O NAGAPPAN, MANNENGOTVADAKKETHIL HOUSE, ANTHIMA MAHAKALAN KAVU, PULAKKODU VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADV.SRI.A.C.DEVY

¶10

RESPONDENT(S)/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT & STATE:

¶11

1. SUGATHAKUMARI

¶12

AGED 50 YEARS, W/O RAMACHANDRAN,

¶13

EXHARAYIL HOUSE, PANNIPPADAM DESOM,

¶14

CHELAKKARA VILLAGE, THALAPPILLY TALUK,

¶15

THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680 502.

¶16

2. THE STATE OF KERALA

¶17

REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,

¶18

HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 682 031.

¶19

R1 BY ADV. SRI.C.R.BIJU KUMAR

¶20

R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.M.K.PUSHPALATHA

¶21

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10-04-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

Crl.MC.No. 1576 of 2018 ()

¶23

APPENDIX

¶24

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶25

ANNEXURE A THE TRUE CARBON COPY OF THE FIR NO. 137/2010 OF THE CHELAKARA POLICE STATION.

¶26

ANNEXURE B THE TRUE CARBON COPY OF THE CHARGE SHEET IN CRIME NO. 137/2010 SUBMITTED BY CHELAKARA POLICE STATION.

¶27

ANNEXURE C A COPY OF THE SETTLEMENT DEED EXECUTED BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND THE 1ST RESPONDENT. ANNEXURE D TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶28

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL

/TRUE COPY/

P. A. TO JUDGE

SUNIL THOMAS, J.

Crl. M. C. No. 1576 of 2018

¶34

Dated this the 10^th day of April, 2018

¶35

O R D E R

¶36

The petitioner stands arrayed as the sole accused in Crime No.137/2010 of Chelakkara Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 447, 341, 354, 326 & 307 IPC. It was alleged by the prosecution that on 24.04.2010 at about 5.00 a.m., the petitioner herein, who is the neighbour of the de facto complainant, trespassed into the house of the de facto complainant and due to previous enmity attacked her with a knife. She sustained injuries on the body. Alleging that the de facto complainant inflicted serious injuries which are likely to result in death crime was registered. After investigation final report was filed. The matter is now pending as S.C.No.298/2011 of the 1^st Additional Assistant Sessions Court, Thrissur.

¶37

Crl.M.C. is filed contending that the petitioner has settled the disputes with the de facto complainant and the de facto complainant has no objection in quashing the proceedings. It is further stated that the parties are neighbours and they are maintaining a cordial relationship. The petitioner relied on an affidavit produced as Annexure D, executed by the de facto

¶38

¶39

Crl. M. C. No. 1576 of 2018

¶40

complainant. Learned counsel for the de facto complainant supported this submission and acknowledged the due execution of Annexure D affidavit.

¶41

The learned Public Prosecutor on instructions submitted that the matter has been settled and the statement of the de facto complainant has been recorded. However, the learned Public Prosecutor produced before me the accident-cumwound certificate issued to the de facto complainant. It shows that the victim had sustained six injuries, out of which one was on the lower chest and yet another on the left shoulder and other injuries on the forearm. Evidently, the injuries were scattered on various parts of the body. Injury sustained on the chest could have been fatal, however, the victim escaped.

¶42

It was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that he has completely settled the dispute with the de facto complainant and has assured the de facto that no such incident will happen in future. Learned counsel for the de facto complainant also asserted that the petitioner herein has apologized and has assured to maintain cordial relationship. It appears that even though very serious injuries were inflicted and

¶43

Crl. M. C. No. 1576 of 2018 3

¶44

serious allegations are raised against the petitioner herein, the 1^st respondent has shown the fairness of condoning it, possibly on a firm belief that the petitioner will not indulged himself in such activities in future. Only on the basis of this assurance of the petitioner herein and the fact that the petitioner is not involved in any other criminal case earlier, I am inclined to grant one more opportunity to the petitioner to mend his ways. Hence, I am inclined to invoke the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the entire proceedings.

¶45

Accordingly, Crl.M.C. is allowed. All further proceedings in S.C.No.298/2011 of the 1^st Additional Assistant Sessions Court, Thrissur stand quashed.

¶46

SUNIL THOMAS, JUDGE.

¶47

Rajan v. Sugathakumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajan v. Sugathakumar

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

Sudheesh K.S. Vs State of Kerala

R.Baiju Vs State of Kerala

Sudarshanan Vs State of Kerala

Vipindas Vs State of Kerala

Muneeb Vs Sharafudheen

Nelson.J Vs State of Kerala