Allowed

Kiran v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC15 Jan 2018Crl.MC/38/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This case involves a criminal miscellaneous petition filed against six accused persons. The High Court, finding that the matter has been amicably settled between the parties and that the defacto complainant has filed an affidavit confirming settlement with no further complaints, quashed the First Information Report, Final Report, and all further proceedings in the underlying criminal case.

What did the court decide?

Annexure-A1 First Information Report, Annexure-A2 Final Report, and all further proceedings in S.C.No.668 of 2014 of the I Assistant Sessions Court, Thrissur, as against the petitioners, are quashed.

Kiran Vs State of Kerala — Quashing and FIR | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.KEMAL PASHA

¶4

MONDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF JANUARY 2018 / 25TH POUSHA, 1939

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 38 of 2018

¶6

SC. NO.668/2014 OF I ASSISTANT SESSIONS COURT, THRISSUR. CP. NO. 44/2013 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, WADAKKANCHERRY. CRIME NO. 76/2013 OF ERUMAPETTY POLICE STATION , THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶7

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 TO 5:

¶8

1 KIRAN, AGED 28 YEARS, S/O.MOHANAN, MANAKALATH HOUSE, THANDILLAM VELLATTANJOOR VILLAGE, THRISSUR (A1).

¶9

2 MOHANAN, AGED 58 YEARS, S/O.GOPALAN, MANAKALATH HOUSE, THANDILLAM VELLATTANJOOR VILLAGE, THRISSUR (A2).

¶10

3 SHIBIN, AGED 25 YEARS, S/O.DUTTAN, PARANGANATTU HOUSE, THANDILLAM, VELLATTANJOOR VILLAGE, THRISSUR (A3). (CORRECTED)

¶11

4 SREEJITH, AGED 25 YEARS, S/O.SUBRAMANIAN, PANANVEETIL HOUSE, THANDILLAM THIRUTH, VELLATTANJOOR VILLAGE, THRISSUR (A4).

¶12

5 SANEESH, AGED 32 YEARS, S/O.BALAN, KANDIRANGATH HOUSE, KADANGODE P.O., THRISSUR (A5).

¶13

6 VINEETH, AGED 27 YEARS, S/O.KRISHNAN,PANANVEETIL HOUSE, MELATHANDILLAM, MICHABHOOMI, VELLATTANJOOR VILLAGE, THRISSUR (A6). BY ADVS.SRI.VINAY RAMDAS, SMT.K.B.ANAMIKA.

¶14

RESPONDENTS/STATE AND DE-FACTO COMPLAINANT:: --------------------------------------------

¶15

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ERUMAPETTY POLICE STATION (THRISSUR DISTRICT), THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031.

¶16

Crl.MC.No. 38 of 2018 : 2 :

¶17

2. SUBHASH @ SUKU, AGED 43 YEARS, S/O.ACHUTHAN, PANGOTTIL HOUSE, THANDILLAM DESOM, VELLATTANJOOR VILLAGE, THALAPILLY THALUK, THRISSUR-680 001.

¶18

R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.C.S. HRITHWIK. R2 BY ADV. SRI.VISHNUPRASAD NAIR.

¶19

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15-01-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

rs.

¶21

THE FATHER'S NAME OF THE 3RD PETITIONER OCCURRING IN THE CAUSE TITLE OF THE FINAL ORDER DATED 15/01/2018 IN CRL.M.C.No.38/2018 IS CORRECTED AS “BHARATHAN” INSTEAD OF “DUTTAN” AS PER ORDER DATED 30/04/2019 IN CRL.M.A.No.1/2019 IN CRL.M.C.No.38/2018.

¶22

Sd/ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

¶23

Crl.MC.No. 38 of 2018

¶24

: 3 :

¶25

B.KEMAL PASHA, J.

¶26

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

¶27

Crl.M.C.No.38 of 2018

¶28

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

¶29

Dated this the 15^th day of January, 2018

¶30

O R D E R

¶31

Petitioners are accused in S.C.No.668 of 2014 of the I Assistant Sessions Court, Thrissur, which has arisen from Crime No.76 of 2013 of the Erumapetty Police Station, Thrissur District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 323 and 308 IPC read with Section 149 IPC.

¶32

It seems that the matter has been amicably settled between the parties.

¶33

On going through the facts and circumstances of the case, it seems that the matter can be permitted to be settled. It has been reported that no criminal antecedents have been reported against the petitioners. This Court is satisfied that there are no ingredients to invite an offence under Section 308 IPC in the matter. The defacto complainant has filed Annexure-A3 affidavit affirming that the matter has been amicably settled between him and the petitioners and he has no complaints against the petitioners. Considering the fact that the matter has

¶34

Crl.MC.No. 38 of 2018 : 4 :

¶35

already been settled amicably between the parties, this Court is satisfied that no purpose would be served in proceeding with the trial of the case. Matters being so, Annexure-A1 First Information Report and Annexure-A2 Final Report and all further proceedings in S.C.No.668 of 2014 of the I Assistant Sessions Court, Thrissur, which has arisen from Crime No.76 of 2013 of the Erumapetty Police Station, as against the petitioners, are liable to be quashed.

¶36

In the result, this Crl.M.C. is allowed and Annexure-A1 First Information Report and Annexure-A2 Final Report and all further proceedings in S.C.No.668 of 2014 of the I Assistant Sessions Court, Thrissur, which has arisen from Crime No.76 of 2013 of the Erumapetty Police Station, as against the petitioners, are hereby quashed.

¶37

Sd/-

¶38

B.KEMAL PASHA JUDGE

Bb/15/1/2018

[True copy]

P.A to Judge

Crl.MC.No. 38 of 2018 : 5 :

¶43

APPENDIX

¶44

PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:

¶45

ANNEXURE A1: A TRUE COPY OF THE FIRST INFORMATION REPORT ALONG WITH FIRST INFORMATION STATEMENT IN THIS CASE DATED 04/02/2013 IN CRIME 76/2013 OF ERUMAPETTY POLICE STATION IN THRISSUR DISTRICT. ANNEXURE A2: A TRUE COPY OF FINAL REPORT DATED 20/03/2013 IN ANNEXURE A1 F.I.R.

¶46

ANNEXURE A3: A TRUE COPY OF AFFIDAVIT MADE BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 11/12/2017.

¶47

RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES: NIL.

¶48

//TRUE COPY//

¶49

P.S. TO JUDGE

¶50

rs.

Kiran v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kiran 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

V.Christopher Vs Saranya B.Rajendran

Damodaran C. Vs a.Karunakaran Nair

Jyothi Nivas Jyoti Super Bazar Vs Sabur Alikhan

Marykutty George Vs Sebastian George

Lohidakshan Vs State of Kerala

Arjunan Vs State of Kerala