Dismissed

Emmannuel v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC15 Jul 2019CRL.A/1522/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed a criminal appeal and quashed the prosecution against five appellants convicted under IPC offences. The court set aside the conviction and sentence because the parties settled the dispute amicably out of court, with the victim affirming no grievance, allowing the trial to be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

What did the court decide?

Conviction and sentence against appellants under relevant IPC sections set aside by quashing the whole prosecution; criminal appeal disposed of accordingly.

Emmannuel Vs the State of Kerala — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.UBAID

¶4

MONDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF JULY 2019 / 24TH ASHADHA, 1941

¶5

CRL.A.No.1522 of 2013

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CP 4/2011 of JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS - I, ETTUMANUR

¶7

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN SC 215/2011 of ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT - IV, KOTTAYAM DATED 25-092013

¶8

APPELLANT/ACCUSED NOS 1 TO 5:

¶9

1 EMMANNUEL, AGED 43 YEARS S/O.KURIAN, KARIKULATHIL HOUSE, NEENDOOR KARA, ONAMTHURUTHU VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, KERALA.

¶10

2 MANOJ, AGED 30 YEARS S/O.MOHANAN, KOTTATHIL HOUSE, NEENDOOR KARA, ONAMTHURUTHU VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, KERALA.

¶11

3 RAJEEV RAVEENDREEN, AGED 28 YEARS S/O.RAVEENDREEN, KALLINKAPARAMBIL HOUSE, NEENDOOR KARA, ONAMTHURUTHU VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, KERALA.

¶12

4 SABU, AGED 47 YEARS, S/O.GEORGE, VETTIKATTIL HOUSE, NEENDOOR KARA, ONAMTHURUTHU VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, KERALA.

¶13

5 ANEESH, AGED 28 YEARS, S/O.GOPI, KALLINKAPARAMBIL HOUSE, NEENDOOR KARA, ONAMTHURUTHU VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, KERALA.

¶14

BY ADVS. SRI.JACOB E SIMON SRI.S.RAJEEV

¶15

Crl.A. No.1522 of 2013

¶16

-2-

¶17

RESPONDENT/STATE:

¶18

1 THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031.

¶19

2 ADDL. R2 JOY LUKOSE, AGED 52 YEARS S/O.LUKOSE, PUZHIKUNNEAL HOUSE, ONAMTHURUTH P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. (IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 27.03.2019 IN CRL.M.A.NO.01/2019).

¶20

BY ADV. SMT.TISSY ROSE K CHERIYAN

¶21

OTHER PRESENT:

¶22

SRI SANTHOSH PETER-SR PP

¶23

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15.07.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶24

Crl.A. No.1522 of 2013

¶25

-3-

¶26

(Crl.A.No.1522 of 2013 & Crl.M.A. No.4 of 2019)

¶27

O R D E R

¶28

The appellants are the five accused in

¶29

S.C. No. 215 of 2011 of the Court of Session, Kottayam. They brought this appeal challenging the conviction and sentence against them under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 324 and 326 IPC read with Section 149 IPC. They faced trial before the learned IV Additional Sessions Judge, Kottayam, under Sections 143, 147, 148, 427, 323, 324 and 308 IPC read with Section 149 IPC. The trial court did not find them guilty under Sections 427 and 308 IPC. Though allegation was made under Section 308 IPC, the trial court found them guilty only under Section 326 IPC.

¶30

2. Pending this appeal, the appellants

¶31

and the victim settled the whole dispute amicably

¶32

out of court, and accordingly, they filed Crl.M.A.No. 4 of 2019 under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for

¶33

Crl.A. No.1522 of 2013

¶34

-4-

¶35

quashing the whole prosecution, including the conviction and sentence. The second respondent in Crl.M.A. No. 4 of 2019 is the victim of offence examined as PW1 in the trial court. He has filed affidavit in court that he has settled the whole dispute with the accused, and he has no grievance or complaint now. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has settled that at any stage of a prosecution, the High Court can quash the whole prosecution including the conviction and sentence, under Section 482 Cr.P.C., if the parties have amicably settled the whole dispute, and come to terms out of court, and if the case does not involve any public interest or public issue. Here, the issue is purely personal, and the victim has settled the whole dispute with the accused. I find that the settlement reported to court is acceptable. The second respondent is represented by a learned counsel, and the affidavit of the second respondent

¶36

Crl.A. No.1522 of 2013

¶37

-5-

¶38

shows that he has no grievance now. In the above circumstances, the whole prosecution, including the conviction and sentence can be set aside.

¶39

In the result, Crl.M.A. No. 4 of 2019 is allowed, and accordingly, the conviction and sentence against the appellants/petitioners under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 324 and 326 in S.C. No. 215 of 2011 will stand set aside, accepting the compromise made out of court. Crl.A. No. 1522 of 2013 will stand disposed of accordingly.

Sd/-

P.UBAID

Ds 15.07.2019

JUDGE

Emmannuel v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Emmannuel v. the 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

S.K.S.Yadav Vs the Superintendent of Police, Cbi/Spe, Kochi Unit

Satheesan K.P. Vs State of Kerala

B.Krishnakumar Vs State of Kerala

Anantharaman Vs Sulaiman

Dirsha K.Muhammad Vs State of Kerala

Kuttappan Vs State of Kerala