Allowed

Liju Ommen Thomas v. Sarath Lal

Kerala HC12 Jul 2018Crl.MC/2938/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order allows a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings initiated for offences under Sections 143, 147, 148, 308, 324 and 506 IPC. The court held that the matter was settled, no public interest was involved, and the petitioners were reformed.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings in Crime No. 1518 of 2017 are quashed; trial court to dispose of material objects.

Liju Ommen Thomas Vs Sarath Lal — Cheque Dishonour | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.ABRAHAM MATHEW

¶3

THURSDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF JULY 2018 / 21ST ASHADHA, 1940

¶4

Crl.MC.No. 2938 of 2018

¶5

CRIME NO. 1518/2017 OF KURATHIKADU POLICE STATION , ALAPPUZHA

¶6

PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED :-

¶7

1 LIJU OMMEN THOMAS PUNNAMMOODU, KURATHIKADU P.O, ALAPPUZHA KERALA. 2 ANOOP B, OLAKETTIYAMBALAM, KURATHIKADU P.O, ALAPPUZHA, KERALA. 3 VYSAKH S, OLAKETTIYAMBALAM, KURATHIKADU P.O, ALAPPUZHA, KERALA. 4 DIVYA PRASAD, OLAKETTIYAMBALAM, KURATHIKADU P.O, ALAPPUZHA, KERALA.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.P.SREEKUMAR SRI.SOORAJ T.ELENJICKAL SRI.K.ARJUN VENUGOPAL SMT.MARY RESHMA GEORGE SMT.V.A.HARITHA SRI.JEEVAN RAJEEV SRI.R.NANDAGOPAL

¶9

RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANTS & STATE :-

¶10

1. SARATH LAL AGED 30 YEARS, S/O. SIVANKUTTY, THOTTATHIL VILAYIL HOUSE, OMALLOOR P.O, KARIMULACKAL - 690 505.

¶11

2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KURATHIKADU POLICE STATION, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT - 690 107.

¶12

3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI - 31.

¶13

R3 BY SRI.C.S HRITHWIK, SR.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶14

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12-07-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

Crl.MC.No. 2938 of 2018 ()

¶16

APPENDIX

¶17

PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES :-

¶18

ANNEXURE A1 A TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO 1518 OF 2017 OF KURATHIKADU POLICE STATION. ANNEXURE A2 A TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE DEFACTO COMPLAINANT SARATH LAL.

¶19

RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES :- NIL

//TRUE COPY//

PA TO JUDGE

SMA

K.ABRAHAM MATHEW J.

¶24

Crl.M.C.No. 2938 of 2018

¶25

Dated this the 12^th day of July, 2018

¶26

O R D E R

¶27

Petition filed under section 482 Cr.P.C.

¶28

Petitioner is the accused in Crime No. 1518 of 2017

¶29

of Kurathikadu Police Station registered for the offences under Sections 143, 147, 148, 308, 324 and 506 r/w 149 IPC. The first respondent is the victim. It is submitted that the matter has been settled and the proceedings in the trial court may be quashed.

¶30

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the

¶31

first respondent and the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶32

The learned Public Prosecutor submits that the first petitioner is involved in 32 criminal cases. On the other hand learned counsel for the petitioner submits that for the last two years the first petitioner has not been involved in any criminal cases and he is a reformed man and he may be given a chance to live a peaceful life. I think the request is reasonable.

¶33

I have perused the affidavit filed by the first respondent, who has entered appearance through counsel. I am

¶34

Crl.M.C.No. 2938 of 2018

¶35

¶36

satisfied that the matter has been settled and no public interest is involved in this case. There is no impediment for granting the prayer of the petitioners.

¶37

In the result, this Crl.M.C is allowed. The

¶38

proceedings in Crime No. 1518 of 2017 of Kurathikadu Police Station are quashed. If any material objects have been produced in this case, the trial court may pass appropriate orders for their disposal.

¶39

Sd/-

¶40

K.ABRAHAM MATHEW, JUDGE

¶41

//True Copy//

¶42

PA TO JUDGE

¶43

SMA

Liju Ommen Thomas v. Sarath Lal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Liju Ommen Thomas v. Sarath Lal

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

Pradeen @ Podi Vs State of Kerala

Ashraf Vs the State of Kerala

Juraji P.C. Vs State of Kerala

Rashid Vs State of Kerala

Abdul Manaf C.K Vs State of Kerala

Sethumadhavan Vs State of Kerala