Allowed

Joby v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC8 Mar 2019Crl.MC/1278/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala quashed criminal proceedings instituted against two accused persons under Sections 323, 324, 326, and 308 IPC. Relying on the voluntary compromise and affidavit filed by the de facto complainant, the Court held the offences were personal in nature with no remote possibility of conviction, thus dispensing with further litigation to promote peace.

What did the court decide?

The FIR in Crime No. 7 of 2019 registered at Kanjikkuzhi Police Station and all further proceedings against the petitioners are quashed.

Joby 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

FRIDAY, THE 08TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 / 17TH PHALGUNA, 1940

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 1278 of 2019

¶6

CRIME NO. 7/2019 OF KANJIKKUZHY POLICE STATION, IDUKKI DISTRICT

¶7

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.1 & 2:

¶8

1 JOBY, AGED 33 YEARS, S/O.SUNNY, PUTHENPARAMBIL HOUSE, KANJIKKUZHI KARA, KANJIKKUZHI VILLAGE, IDUKKI TALUK.

¶9

2 SUNNY, AGED 54 YEARS, S/O.SAMUEL, PUTHENPARAMBIL HOUSE, KANJIKKUZHI KARA, KANJIKKUZHI VILLAGE, IDUKKI TALUK.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.R.LAIJU

¶11

RESPONDENTS/STATE & DE FACTO COMPLAINANT:

¶12

1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KANJIKKUZHI POLICE STATION, THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031.

¶13

2 JOLLY VARGHESE, AGED 38 YEARS, S/O. E.V. VARGHESE, ERACHERIL HOUSE, KANJIKKUZHY P.O., IDUKKI DISTRICT-685 602.

¶14

R2 BY ADV. SRI.P.S.SYAMKUTTAN

¶15

R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. AJITH MURALI

¶16

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08.03.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

CRL.MC:1278/2019

ORDER

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

¶21

The petitioners herein are the accused Nos.1 & 2 in Crime No.7 of 2019 registered at the Kanjikkuzhi Police Station. In the aforesaid case, they are being proceeded against for having committed offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 326, 308 r/w. Section 34 of the IPC.

¶22

According to the prosecution, the de facto complainant was having some financial transactions with the petitioners. When he failed to repay the amount, the petitioners are alleged to have dashed him down while he was travelling in his bike and thereafter attacked him causing injuries.

¶23

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

¶24

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the victim and the offenders have arrived at a compromise and

¶25

CRL.MC:1278/2019

¶26

¶27

reiterating the said fact, the victim has filed an affidavit before this Court. According to the learned counsel, the records would reveal that no serious injuries were sustained by the victim. 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 2^nd respondent would also refer to Annexure-A2 affidavit 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.

¶28

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.

¶29

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.

¶30

CRL.MC:1278/2019

¶31

¶32

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

¶33

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.

¶34

CRL.MC:1278/2019

¶35

¶36

In the result, this petition will stand allowed. Annexure-A1

¶37

FIR in Crime No.7 of 2019 registered at the Kanjikkuzhi Police Station and all further proceedings pursuant thereto against the petitioners

¶38

are quashed.

¶39

SD/-

¶40

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V.,

¶41

JUDGE

¶42

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

krj

CRL.MC:1278/2019

APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶48

ANNEXURE A1 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIRST INFORMATION REPORT IN CRIME NO.7/2009 OF THE KANJIKKUZHI POLICE STATION. ANNEXURE A2 ORIGINAL AFFIDAVIT DATED 10/2/2019 SWORN IN BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. ANNEXURE A3 TRUE COPY OF THE DRIVING LICENCE OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶49

RESPONDENTS’ EXHIBIT/S: NIL

Joby v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Joby 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

Abu Vs the State of Kerala

Pavan.S, Vs the Station House Officer

Anu J.Nair @ Nandu Vs State of Kerala

Shefrin Sheriff Vs the State of Kerala

Eliyamma Vs State of Kerala

Mohammadali Vs State of Kerala