Allowed

Mathew Jacob v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC15 Feb 2018Crl.MC/621/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala quashed criminal proceedings filed against the petitioner for an offence under Section 324 IPC. The court allowed the petition, finding that the matter had been amicably settled between the petitioner and the defacto complainant, rendering further trial purposesless.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed; all further proceedings in C.C.No.198 of 2007 against the petitioner are quashed.

Mathew Jacob Vs State of Kerala — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.KEMAL PASHA

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2018 / 26TH MAGHA, 1939

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 621 of 2018

¶6

CC.NO.198/2007 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-II, ERNAKULAM

¶7

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

¶8

MATHEW JACOB, S/O.JACOB JOSEPH, AGED 50 YEARS, FLAT NO.2, PLAKKAD COLONY, KADAVANTHARA, ELAMKULAM VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.O.V.MANIPRASAD SRI.JOSE ANTONY SRI.S.SHIV SHANKAR

¶10

RESPONDENT(S)/STATE & DE-FACTO COMPLAINANT :

¶11

1. STATE OF KERALA, (REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ERNAKULAM CENTRAL POLICE STATION CRIME NO.392/2007), REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶12

2. ELIAS VARGHESE, AGED 55 YEARS, S/O.VARGHESE, RESIDING AT POOPARAMBIL HOUSE, KARSHAKA ROAD, M.G.ROAD, P.O KARITHALA DESOM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT,PIN:682 016.

¶13

R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.ALEX M. THOMBRA R2 BY ADV. SRI.GEO PAUL

¶14

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15-02-2018,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

sts

¶16

Crl.MC.No. 621 of 2018 ()

¶17

APPENDIX

¶18

PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES:

¶19

ANNEXURE-A1	A TRUE COPY OF THE FIR AND F.I. STATEMENT IN CRIME NO.392/2007 OF CENTRAL POLICE STATION,ERNAKULAM.
ANNEXURE A2	A TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT/CHARGE SHEET DATED 31/3/2007 IN CRIME NO.392/2007 OF CENTRAL POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM.
ANNEXURE A3	THE AFFIDAVIT DATED 4/10/2017 SWORN TO BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶20

RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES: NIL

/TRUE COPY/

P.A.TO JUDGE

sts

B.KEMAL PASHA, J.

¶25

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

¶26

Crl.M.C.No.621 of 2018

¶27

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

¶28

Dated this the 15^th day of February, 2018

¶29

O R D E R

¶30

Petitioner is the accused in C.C.No.198 of 2007 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-II, Ernakulam, which has arisen from Crime No.392 of 2007 of the Central Police Station, Ernakulam, for the offence under Section 324 IPC.

¶31

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

¶32

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 petitioner. The defacto complainant has filed Annexure-A3 affidavit affirming that the matter has been amicably settled between him and the petitioner and he has no complaints against the petitioner. Considering the fact that the matter has already been settled amicably between the parties, this court is satisfied that no purpose would be served in proceeding with the trial of the

¶33

Crl.M.C.No.621 of 2018

¶34

¶35

case. Matters being so, all further proceedings in C.C.No.198 of 2007 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-II, Ernakulam, which has arisen from Crime No.392 of 2007 of the Central Police Station, Ernakulam, as against the petitioner, are liable to be quashed.

¶36

In the result, this Crl.M.C. is allowed and all further proceedings in C.C.No.198 of 2007 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-II, Ernakulam, which has arisen from Crime No.392 of 2007 of the Central Police Station, Ernakulam, as against the petitioner, are hereby quashed.

¶37

Sd/-

¶38

B.KEMAL PASHA JUDGE

¶39

DSV/19/2/18

Mathew Jacob v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mathew Jacob 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

Balachandran Pillai Vs State of Kerala

Nashid Vs State of Kerala

P.C. Jose Vs State of Kerala

Nikhil.T. Vs State of Kerala

Jalaluddeen Thangal Vs State of Kerala

Chand Khadeeja Vs State of Kerala