Allowed

Sunil Kumar v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC14 Aug 2018Crl.Rev.Pet/126/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal revision petition and an accompanying miscellaneous application, the High Court of Kerala set aside the entire prosecution, including conviction and sentence, against the petitioners who were accused of causing voluntary hurt. The court was satisfied that the parties had amicably settled the dispute out of court even though the offence was non-compoundable.

What did the court decide?

The entire prosecution against the revision petitioners, including the conviction and sentence under the IPC, was set aside, and they were released from prosecution.

Sunil Kumar 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

TUESDAY ,THE 14TH DAY OF AUGUST 2018 / 23RD SRAVANA, 1940

¶5

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 126 of 2006

¶6

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN CRA 165/2004 of SPL. COURT (NDPS ACT CASES), THODUPUZHA DATED 30-11-2005

¶7

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN CC 85/2002 of C.J.M.,THODUPUZHA

¶8

DATED 21-05-2004

¶9

REVISION PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS/ACCUSED 1 & 2:

¶10

1 SUNIL KUMAR PARAKATTU VEETTIL, MILLUPADI BHAGAM,, KUMARAMANGALAM VILLAGE.

¶11

2 UMESH SO. UMAPATHY KALARICKAL HOUSE, MILLUPADI BHAGAM,, KUMARAMANGALAM VILLAGE.

¶12

BY ADVS.SRI. T.A. UNNIKRISHNAN SMT. RESHMI POULOSE SRI. P.P. THAJUDEEN

¶13

RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

¶14

1 STATE OF KERALA REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶15

ADDL2^{THANKAMMA, AGED 68,}

¶16

W/O.LATE AYYAPPA PANIKKAR, NOW RESIDIING AT THEKKUMKATTIL HOUSE, VENGALLOOR P.O, THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN- 685 608.

¶17

ADDL3^{MANJULA SAJEEVAN, AGED 48,}

¶18

D/O.LATE AYYAPPA PANIKKAR, NOW RESIDING AT SANJEEVANI HOUSE, KUMARAMANGALAM P.O, THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN - 685 608.

¶19

ADDL4^{MANJUSHA DEVADAS, AGED 46,}

¶20

D/O.LATE AYYAPPA PANIKKAR, NOW RESIDING AT PEDAPPATTU HOUSE, KUMARAMANGALAM P.O, THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI DISTRICT,PIN - 685 608.

¶21

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 126/2006 &

¶22

¶23

Crl.M.A No.4752/2018

¶24

ADDL5^{MAYA NARAYANAN, AGED 40,} D/O.LATE AYYAPPA PANIKKAR, NOW RESIDING AT PEDAPPATTU HOUSE, KUMARAMANGALAM P.O, THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN -N685 608.

¶25

ADDL6^{MANOJ T.A., AGED 42,} S/O.LATE AYYAPPA PANIKAR, NOW RESIDING AT THEKKUMKATTIL HOUSE, VENGALLUR P.O, THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN - 685 608. ADD.R2 TO R6 ARE IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER ON 14.8.2018 IN CRL.M.A 4355/2018 R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTO5 SRI.C.M. KAMMAPPU R2 TO R6 BY SMT.C.SEENA

¶26

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14.08.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶27

ORDER

¶28

The judgement of conviction under Section 326 I.P.C

¶29

in C.C 85/2002 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate

¶30

Court, Thodupuzha is under challenge in this revision. Though there is conviction under Sections 323 and 324 I.P.C also, no separate sentence was imposed by the court. Pending the revision, the parties came to terms and settled the whole dispute. The de facto complainant who sustained injuries in the alleged incident is no more. His legal representatives are impleaded as additional respondents 2 to 6 in the revision petition.

¶31

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 126/2006 &

¶32

Crl.M.A No.4752/2018

¶33

¶34

The parties filed a composition under Section 320 (6)

¶35

Cr.P.C, but it was not acceptable to the court for the reason that the offence under Section 326 I.P.C is not compoundable under the law. Realising this, the parties filed the above Crl.M.A 4752/2018 under Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash the whole prosecution including the conviction and sentence. The legal heirs of the victim are parties to this petition also. The parties have produced the copy of the death certificate showing the death of the victim of offence on 16.02.2012 at the Holy Family Hospital, Muthalakodam, Thodupuzha. The whole dispute now stands settled amicably out of court on the intervention of persons acceptable to both sides.

¶36

The Hon'ble Supreme Court has settled that at

¶37

any stage of a prosecution, the High Court can quash the prosecution under Section 482 Cr.P.C including the conviction and sentence, if the parties have settled the whole dispute out of court amicably and the case does not involve any public issue or serious issue. This is only a case of assault. It does not involve any public issue. The victim of offence is no more, but the legal representatives have settled the dispute with the

¶38

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 126/2006 &

¶39

Crl.M.A No.4752/2018

¶40

¶41

accused. I am well satisfied that the parties have come to terms amicably and in such a circumstance, it is only appropriate that the whole prosecution including the conviction and sentence be set aside.

¶42

In the result, Crl.M.A 4752/2018 is allowed and

¶43

the Crl.R.P. is disposed of, in terms of the compromise. The whole prosecution against the revision petitioners who are the accused in C.C No.85/2002 of the court below, including the conviction and sentence against them under Sections 323, 324 and 326 I.P.C will stand set aside under Section 482 Cr.P.C and the petitioners will stand released from prosecution.

¶44

Sd/

¶45

P.UBAID

¶46

/True copy/ Judge P.S to Judge

¶47

Sunil Kumar v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunil Kumar 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

Abdul Khader Vs State of Kerala

Saji George Vs State of Kerala

Pushparajan Vs State

T.G. Varghese Vs State of Kerala

Shajimon Vs State of Kerala

Mujeeb Rahman Vs the State of Kerala