Allowed

Mereena v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC2 Aug 2018Crl.MC/6127/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed an application to quash the prosecution against the petitioner for offences under Sections 294(b) IPC and 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act. The court held that since the parties settled the dispute amicably and it did not involve public interest or grave offence, the trial could be quashed under Section 482 CrPC.

What did the court decide?

The prosecution against the petitioner in Crime No.81/2013 (C.P.No.57/2013 and S.C.No.115/2015) was quashed.

Mereena Vs State of Kerala — Caste Atrocities | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.UBAID

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF AUGUST 2018 / 11TH SRAVANA, 1940

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 6127 of 2015

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER IN Crl.MC 1585/2014 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA

¶7

AGAINST THE ORDER IN CP 57/2013 of J.M.F.C., KOLENCHERY

¶8

CRIME NO. 81/2013 OF MULANTHURUTHY POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM

¶9

PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.2 :-

¶10

MEREENA, AGED 55, W/O. KESHAVAN, VATTATHUPARAMBIL HOUSE, VETTIKKAL P.O., MULANTHURUTHY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶11

BY ADVS.SMT.AYSHA YOUSEFF SMT.MOLLY JACOB SRI.JOBI.A.THAMPI

¶12

RESPONDENTS/STATE/COMPLAINANT :-

¶13

1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KREALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶14

2. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, MUVATTUPUZHA-686661.

¶15

3. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MULANTHURUTHY-682314.

¶16

4. M.M.SASI, S/O. MADHAVAN, MADASSERI HOUSE, THALPANA, PULLIKUMEL P.O., MULANTHURUTHY-682314, ERNAKULAM (DISTRICT).

¶17

R4 BY ADVS. SRI.P.G.MANU (MAMMALASSERY) SMT.G.MAHESWARY

¶18

SRI.JOBIN PAUL R BY SRI.C.K.PRASAD, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶19

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02-08-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

Crl.MC.No. 6127 of 2015 ()

¶21

PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES :- ----------------------------

¶22

ANNEXURE I	-	PHOTOCOPY OF THE PETITION DTD. 5-3-2013 MADE BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.
ANNEXURE II	-	PHOTOCOPY OF THE FIR DTD. 8-3-2013 REGISTERED AGAINST THE PETITIONER AND OTHERS.
ANNEXURE III	-	PHOTOCOPY OF THE FINAL REPORT FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT ALLEGING OFFENCES U/S 294(B) AND SECTION 3(1)(X) OF THE SCHEDULED CASTE SCHEDULED TRIBE ATROCITIES ACT.
ANNEXURE IV	-	PHOTOCOPY OF STATEMENT OF M.M.SASI.
ANNEXURE IV(a)	-	PHOTOCOPY OF STATEMENT OF SMT. PRASEENA.
ANNEXURE IV(b)	-	PHOTOCOPY OF STATEMENT OF SMT. LATHA BABU.
ANNEXURE IV(c)	-	PHOTOCOPY OF STATEMENT OF EBY.
ANNEXURE IV(d)	-	PHOTOCOPY OF STATEMENT OF MOHANAN.
ANNEXURE IV(e)	-	PHOTOCOPY OF STATEMENT OF MARIAKUTTY.
ANNEXURE V	-	PHOTOCOPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 22-11-2014 IN CRL.MC.NO.1585/2014.

¶23

RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES :- NIL --------------------------

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE

rkj

P.UBAID, J.

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

¶29

Crl.M.C.No.6127 of 2015

¶30

================================ Dated this the 2^nd day of August, 2018

¶31

ORDER

¶32

The petitioner herein is the second accused in C.P.No.57 of 2013 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Kolenchery, involving the offence under Section 294(b) IPC, and under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act. The accused Nos.1 and 2 are husband and wife. The first accused is no more, and the charge against him stands abated. The case as against the accused Nos.3 to 6 stands already quashed by this Court as per the order dated 22.11.2014 in Crl.M.C.No.1585 of 2014. This Court quashed the prosecution as against the accused Nos.3 to 6 on the finding that the allegations under Section 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act are practically against the second accused, and that there is absolutely no material for a prosecution under Section 294(b) IPC.

¶33

Pending this proceeding the parties came to terms, and settled the dispute amicably out of Court. The 4^th respondent is defacto complainant in this case. He has now filed an affidavit before this Court that he has settled the whole dispute amicably with the petitioner, and he has no grievance or complaint now. On hearing both sides, I find that the affidavit is acceptable, and the pending prosecution can be quashed. It is

¶34

Crl.M.C.No.6127 of 2015

¶35

¶36

now submitted that the case has been committed to the Special Court, where it is pending as S.C.No.115 of 2015. The Honourable Supreme Court has held in so many decisions that the High Court can quash a prosecution under Section 482 Cr.P.C., whatever be the offence alleged, if the dispute between the parties stands amicably settled, and the issue does not involve any public interest or grave offence. This is not a case involving any grave offence or public interest, and the parties have settled the whole disputes out of Court.

¶37

In the result, the petition is allowed. The prosecution against the petitioner herein as the second accused in Crime No.81/2013 of the Mulanthuruthy Police Station (C.P.No.57/2013 of Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Kolenchery) now pending as S.C.No.115/2015 before the Court of Session, Ernakulam (Special Court) will stand quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

¶38

rkj P.UBAID, JUDGE

¶39

Sd/-

Mereena v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mereena 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

Rajan Vs State of Kerala

Mariamma Vs State of Kerala

Sayanakumar Vs State of Kerala

Krishnan Kutty Nair Vs the State of Kerala

Manikandan Vs State of Kerala

Vincent Vs State of Kerala