Allowed

Anu J.Nair @ Nandu v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC7 Mar 2019Crl.MC/1229/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Crl.MC.No. 1229 of 2019, the Kerala High Court considered a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings for offences alleged against five petitioners. Based on the affidavit of the victims indicating voluntary settlement and the absence of grave injuries or public interest, the Court quashed the proceedings to resolve the private dispute and ensure peace.

What did the court decide?

The Final Report (Annexure-A3) and all further proceedings pursuant thereto against the petitioners in C.C. No.268 of 2017 were quashed.

Anu J.Nair @ Nandu Vs State of Kerala — Quashing and FIR | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶4

THURSDAY ,THE 07TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 / 16TH PHALGUNA, 1940

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 1229 of 2019

¶6

CC 268/2017 of JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -I,TRIVANDRUM

¶7

CRIME NO. 876/2016 OF SREEKARIYAM POLICE STATION , THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

¶8

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO.1 TO 5:

¶9

1 ANU J.NAIR @ NANDU S/O JAYAKUMARAN NAIR, ARYA BHAVAN HOUSE, MADATHUNADA, SREEKARYAM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 017.

¶10

2 SATHEESH

¶11

S/O. SATHYAVESHAN, TAZHATHUVILAKAM HOSUE, SATHEESH BHAVANAM, SREEKARYAM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 017.

¶12

3 SAI PRASANTH

¶13

S/O SREEKUMAR, SREESHYILAM HOUSE, ANANDESWARAM, CHEMPAZHANTHY P.O., THIRUVANANTHAURAM-695587.

¶14

4 SAI PRADEEP

¶15

S/O SREEKUMAR, SREESHYILAM HOUSE, ANANDESWARAM, CHEMPAZHANTHY P.O., THIRUVANANTHAURAM-695587.

¶16

5 SUMESH

¶17

S/O SURESH, THAZHUTHUVILASAM, MULATHUVADA, ASHA BHAVAN, SREEKARYAM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 017.

¶18

BY ADV. SRI.SUVIN.R.MENON

¶19

RESPONDENTS/STATE/DE FACTO COMPLAINANT/WITNESS:

¶20

1 STATE OF KERALA

¶21

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

¶22

Crl.MC.No. 1229 of 2019

¶23

¶24

2 SHALU K. S/O KRISHNANKUTTY NAIR, VRINDAVANAM HOUSE, MADATHUNADA KOZHUVANKARA, CHERUKKAL VILLAGE, MEDICAL COLLEGE P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 011.

¶25

3 JAYAKUMAR R. S/O RAMACHANDRAN, RAKHI VILASAM, MADAVILA LANE, MADATHUNADA CHERVAKKAL VILLAGE, SREEKARIYAM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 017.

¶26

SRI RAMESH CHAND PP

¶27

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07.03.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶28

Crl.MC.No. 1229 of 2019

¶29

¶30

ORDER

¶31

This petition is filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.

¶32

The petitioners herein are the accused Nos.1 to 5 in C.C.

¶33

No.268 of 2017 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Thiruvananthapuram. In the aforesaid case, they are being proceeded against for having committed offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 294(b), 323 & 324 of the IPC.

¶34

On 03.07.2016, the petitioners are alleged to have attacked the 2^nd and 3^rd respondents causing injuries.

¶35

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, the party respondents and the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶36

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the victims and the offenders have arrived at a compromise and narrating the said fact, the victims have filed separate affidavits before this Court. According to the learned counsel, the records would reveal that no serious injuries were sustained by the victims. The termination of proceedings would resolve a festering private dispute between the parties and it is prayed that the proceedings be quashed. The learned counsel appearing for the party respondents would also refer to the

¶37

Crl.MC.No. 1229 of 2019 4

¶38

affidavits and it is submitted that the parties have not only buried the hatchet, but also have decided to live peacefully in future. According to the learned counsel, no purpose would be served in dragging these proceedings.

¶39

The learned Public Prosecutor, on instructions, submitted that the petitioners are not persons with criminal antecedents and that the State has no grievance in quashing the proceedings as no public interest is involved.

¶40

It is thus borne out from the submissions made at the bar that the parties have amicably settled their disputes on their own free will and without any kind of pressure, influence or coercion. The compromise, it is felt, is voluntary and genuine, and can be acted upon.

¶41

In Gian Singh v. State of Punjab [(2012) 10 SCC 303],

¶42

the Apex Court has held that in appropriate cases, the High Court can take note of the amicable resolution of disputes between the victim and the wrongdoer to put an end to the criminal proceedings. This view was reiterated in Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab. [(2014) 6 SCC 466] and Yogendra Yadav and Others v. State of Jharkhand and Another [(2014) 9 SCC 653] .

¶43

Crl.MC.No. 1229 of 2019

¶44

¶45

Having considered the submissions advanced and on perusing the records, it appears that the offences are entirely personal in nature and do not affect public peace or tranquility. The injuries allegedly inflicted by the petitioners cannot be said to be grave and serious having ingredients of extreme mental depravity. It is also felt that quashing of proceedings on account of compromise would bring about peace. In a case such as the instant one, even if the prosecution is allowed to continue, it would not serve any purpose as the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak. It can only result in putting the de facto complainant and the accused to unwanted oppression and prejudice. Settlement will augur well for the interest of the community and will enable the parties to live in peace and harmony.

¶46

In the result, this petition is allowed. Annexure-A3 final report and all further proceedings pursuant thereto against the petitioners now pending as C.C. No.268 of 2017 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court - I, Thiruvananthapuram are quashed.

¶47

SD/-

¶48

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V.,

¶49

JUDGE

¶50

IAP

¶51

//TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE

¶52

Crl.MC.No. 1229 of 2019

¶53

¶54

APPENDIX

¶55

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶56

ANNEXURE A1	CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIRST INFORMATION REPORT DATED 24.7.2016 IN CRIME NO.876 OF 2016 OF SREEKARYAM POLICE STATION.
ANNEXURE A2	CERTIFIED COPY OF FIRST INFORMATION STATEMENT OF THE DE-FACTO COMPLAINANT IN CRIME NO.876 OF 2016 OF SREEKARYAM POLICE STATION, DATED 23.7.2016.
ANNEXURE A3	CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO.876 OF 2016 OF SREEKARYAM POLICE STATION SUBMITTED BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-I, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
ANNEXURE A4	AFFIDAVIT DATED 3.2.2019 SWORN BY 2ND RESPONDENT; THE DE-FACTO COMPLAINANT IN CRIME NO.876 OF 2016 OF SREEKARYAM POLICE STATION.
ANNEXURE A5 RESPONDENTS' EXH	AN AFFIDAVIT DATED 3.2.2019 SWORN BY 3RD RESPONDENT; THE IST WITNESS IN CRIME NO. 876 OF 2016 OF SREEKARYAM POLICE STATION. IBITS:

¶57

NIL

Anu J.Nair @ Nandu v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anu J.Nair @ Nandu 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

Sreejith.K.K. Vs State of Kerala

Kumaravel.P., Vs State of Kerala

Dinesan.K, Vs the State of Kerala

Abu Vs the State of Kerala

Pavan.S, Vs the Station House Officer

Sulthan Sadath Vs State of Kerala