Quashed

Vincent v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC2 Aug 2018Crl.Rev.Pet/1173/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court quashed the prosecution against accused persons convicted under Section 326 IPC. It accepted that the parties had settled the dispute amicably, noting that while the offence was non-compoundable at the trial level, the High Court could accept the settlement and quash proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

What did the court decide?

The entire prosecution against the revision petitioners was quashed, convicted persons set free, and the revision petitions were disposed of.

Vincent 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 P.UBAID

¶4

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

¶5

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1173 of 2006

¶6

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN CRA 169/2004 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC)-II, THODUPUZHA DATED 30-01-2006

¶7

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN CC 344/2002 of J.M.F.C.-I(FOREST OFFENCES),THODUPUZHA

¶8

REVISION PETITIONER(S)/APPELLANTS/ACCUSED NOS.1,2 AND 4:

¶9

1 VINCENT

¶10

PALAKKATTU VEETTIL, KODIKULAM KARA,, KODIKULAM VILLAGE,

¶11

THODUPUZHA TALUK (A1).

¶12

2 GEORGE, S/O. MATHEW,

¶13

PALAKKATTU VEETTIL, KODIKULAM KARA,, KODIKULAM VILLAGE,

¶14

THODUPUZHA TALUK (A2).

¶15

3 GIJO, S/O. MATHEW, THAYYIL VEETTIL, PONNAMTHANAM BHAGAM, MRALA KARA,, KARIMKUKNNAM VILLAGE, THODUPUZHA. (A4).

¶16

BY ADVS.SRI.C.M.TOMY

¶17

SRI.MATHEW SKARIA

¶18

RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT::

¶19

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

¶20

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.C.M.KAMMAPPU

¶21

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ALONG WITH CRL.R.P.1164/2006 ON 02-08-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

P.UBAID, J.

¶23

~~~~~~~~~~ Crl.R.P Nos.1164 &1173 of 2006 & Crl.M.A Nos.4464 & 4465 of 2018 ~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated this the 2^nd August, 2018

¶24

O R D E R

¶25

The revision petitioners in Crl.R.P.1173/2006 are the accused Nos.1,2 and 4 in C.C No.344/2002 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Thodupuzha and the revision petitioner in Crl.R.P. No.1164/2006 is the 3^rd accused therein. They challenge the conviction and sentence against them under Section 326 I.P.C. They were convicted and sentenced by the trial court under Sections 447, 323, 324 and 326 I.P.C read with Section 34 I.P.C. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction, the accused Nos.1,2 and 4 filed Crl.A No.169/2004 before the Court of Session, Thodupuzha and the accused No.3 filed Crl.A No.170/2004. The two appeals were disposed of by a common judgment by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc-II) Thodupuzha on 30.1.2006. Pending the two appeals, the parties settled the issues and compounded the offences under Sections 447, 323 and 324 I.P.C. The composition was accepted and accordingly, the accused were acquitted under Section

¶26

¶27

Crl.R.P Nos.1164 &1173 of 2006 & Crl.M.A Nos.4464 & 4465 of 2018

¶28

320(8) Cr.P.C as regards the charge under Sections 447, 323 and 324 I.P.C. The conviction under Section 326 I.P.C was confirmed in appeal by the appellate court, but the sentence was modified and reduced to simple imprisonment for three months each and a fine of 1000/- each. The four₹ accused have challenged the conviction and sentence under Section 326 I.P.C in the two revision petitions.

¶29

When the revision petitions came up for hearing,

¶30

it was submitted last time that the parties have settled the issues amicably out of court and the victim has no grievance or complaint now. In terms of settlement, the parties filed two applications under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Crl.M.A 4464/2018 is the application filed on behalf of the accused Nos.1,2 and 4 under Section 482 Cr.P.C and Crl.M.A 4465/2018 is the application filed on behalf of the 3^rd accused. Instead of filing a single application under Section 482 Cr.P.C incorporating the whole compromise, the parties filed two applications under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The victim of offence who sustained injuries in the alleged incident has filed affidavit in both the applications that he has settled

¶31

¶32

Crl.R.P Nos.1164 &1173 of 2006 & Crl.M.A Nos.4464 & 4465 of 2018

¶33

the dispute amicably and he has no grievance or complaint now.

¶34

On hearing both sides, and on a perusal of the affidavit filed by the victim in the proceedings, I am satisfied that the parties have come to terms amicably out of court and the entire dispute stands resolved forever. Though settlement as regards Section 326 I.P.C was also reported to court, it was not accepted by the appellate court for the reason that the offence under Section 326 I.P.C is not compoundable under the law. Anyway, such settlement can be accepted by the High Court, and on such settlement, the prosecution can be quashed by the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C as settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in so many decisions. This case does not involve any public interest and the parties do not want to go ahead with the prosecution proceedings. In such a situation, it is quite appropriate and just that the prosecution be quashed.

¶35

In the result, the Crl.M.A Nos.4464 & 4465 of 2018 are allowed. Accordingly, the whole prosecution against the

¶36

Crl.M.A Nos.4464 & 4465 of 2018

¶37

¶38

Crl.R.P Nos.1164 &1173 of 2006 &

¶39

revision petitioners in the two revision petitions including the conviction and sentence against them under Section 326 I.P.C in C.C 344/2002 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Thodupuzha, confirmed in appeal by the appellate court in Crl.A Nos.169/2004 and 170/2004 will stand set aside and the revision petitioners will stand released from prosecution. The two revision petitions are accordingly disposed of.

Sd/-

P.UBAID JUDGE

/True copy/

P.S to Judge

Vincent v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vincent 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

Cases cited

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

Mereena Vs State of Kerala