Quashed

Ranesh, v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC8 Apr 2019Crl.MC/148/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed a criminal miscellaneous petition by the accused Ranesh seeking quashment of criminal proceedings initiated based on an FIR under IPC 354A/354D and POCSO Act. The petitioner settled all disputes with the complainant who confirmed the settlement via affidavit. The court quashed the FIR and subsequent proceedings as continuance would serve no purpose.

What did the court decide?

The impugned FIR, Final Report, and all further proceedings pending against the accused are quashed in the interest of justice.

Ranesh, Vs the 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 ALEXANDER THOMAS

¶4

MONDAY, THE 08TH DAY OF APRIL 2019 / 18TH CHAITHRA, 1941

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 148 of 2019

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN SC 261/2016 of ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT 1, MANJERI

¶7

CRIME NO. 1050/2015 OF CHANGARAMKULAM POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM

¶8

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

¶9

RANESH,

¶10

AGED 26 YEARS S/O.MUHAMMED KUTTY, THOZHUTHIKAL HOUSE, POOKKARATHARA, KOLALAMBA POST, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶11

BY ADV. SRI.E.C.AHAMED FAZIL

¶12

RESPONDENTS/STATE - COMPLAINANT & VICTIMS:

¶13

1 THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM- 682031.

¶14

2 THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHENGARAMKULAM POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT- 679575.

¶15

3 NAJMA T.S., AGED 18 YEARS D/O.SAIDALI, THEKKEKARA HOUSE, KAKKIDAPURAM, ALAMCODE, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT- 679585.

¶16

SRI.T.R.RENJITH, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR FOR R1 AND R2, SRI.SHAHIM BIN AZIZ FOR R3

¶17

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08.04.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

Crl.MC.No. 148 of 2019

¶19

¶20

ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.

¶21

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Crl.M.C. No.148 of 2019

¶22

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 08^th day of April, 2019

¶23

O R D E R

¶24

The petitioner herein is the sole accused in the impugned Anx-A1 FIR in Crime No.1050/2015 of Changaramkulam Police Station, Malappuram district, registered for offence punishable under Secs.354A(1) & 354D of the Indian Penal Code, Sec.11(i)(iv) of the POCSO Act, which has led to the institution of Ann-A2 Final Report in S.C.No.261/2016 on the files of Additional Sessions Court-I, Manjeri. It is stated that now the entire disputes between the petitioner and the 3^rd respondent de facto complainant have been settled amicably and that the 3^rd respondent has sworn to Anx.A5 affidavit before this Court, wherein it is stated that she has settled the entire disputes with the petitioner and that she has no objection for quashment of the impugned criminal proceedings pending against the petitioner. It is in the light of these aspects that the petitioner has preferred the instant Crl.M.C. with the prayer to quash the impugned criminal proceedings against him.

¶25

In a catena of decisions, the Apex Court has held that, in appropriate cases involving even non-compoundable offences, the High Court can quash

¶26

Crl.MC.No. 148 of 2019

¶27

¶28

prosecution by exercise of the powers under Sec.482 of the Cr.P.C., if the parties have really settled the whole dispute or if the continuance of the prosecution will not serve any purpose. Here, this Court finds a real case of settlement between the parties and it is also found that continuance of the prosecution in such a situation will not serve any purpose other than wasting the precious time of the court, when the case ultimately comes before the court. On a perusal of the petition and on a close scrutiny of the investigation materials on record and the affidavit of settlement and taking into account the attendant facts and circumstances of this case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the legal principles laid down by the Apex Court in the cases as in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab reported in 2013 (1) SCC (Cri) 160 = (2012) 10 SCC 303 and Narinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and anr . reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466, more particularly paragraph 29 thereof, could be applied in this case to consider the prayer for quashment.

¶29

Accordingly, it is ordered in the interest of justice that the impugned Anx-A1 FIR in Crime No.1050/2015 of Changaramkulam Police Station, Malappuram district which has led to the institution of Ann-A2 Final Report in S.C.No.261/2016 on the files of Additional Sessions Court-I, Manjeri and all further proceedings arising therefrom pending against the accused will stand quashed.

¶30

Crl.MC.No. 148 of 2019

¶31

¶32

With these observations and directions, the above Criminal Miscellaneous Case stands finally disposed of.

¶33

Sd/-

¶34

ALEXANDER THOMAS JUDGE

¶35

vgd

¶36

Crl.MC.No. 148 of 2019

¶37

¶38

APPENDIX

¶39

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶40

ANNEXURE A1 TRUE COPY OF FIRST INFORMATION REPORT IN CRIME NO.1050 OF 2015 OF CHANGARAMKULAM POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. ANNEXURE A2 CERTIFIED COPY OF CHARGE SHEET IN CRIME NO.1050 OF 2015 OF CHANGARAMKULAM POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶41

ANNEXURE A3 TRUE COPY OF FIRST INFORMATION REPORT IN CRIME NO.1046 OF 2015 OF CHANGARAMKULAM POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶42

ANNEXURE A4 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 13.12.2017 IN ST NO.93 OF 2013 PASSED BY GRAM NYAYALAYA, PONNANI-EDAPPAL. ANNEXURE A5 AFFIDAVIT SWORN IN BY 3RD RESPONDENT.

Ranesh, v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ranesh, 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Antony Vs State of Kerala

P.M.Mohammed Ashraf, Vs State of Kerala

Mohammed Niyas Vs State of Kerala

Aneesh Vs State of Kerala

Mujeeb Rahman Vs the State of Kerala

Manoj Jose Vs Anil Kumar