Allowed

Sulthan Sadath v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC7 Mar 2019Crl.MC/1548/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner, accused in S.T. No.51 of 2018 before the Grama Nyayalaya for offences under IPC Sections 341, 323, and 506(1), filed a petition under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of proceedings. After hearing arguments and reviewing the records indicating an amicable settlement between parties, the High Court held the offences were personal and offered no public interest if continued, thereby

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed; Final report and all further proceedings against the petitioner in S.T. No.51 of 2018 at Grama Nyayalaya, Edappal, are quashed.

Sulthan Sadath 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. 1548 of 2019

¶6

ST 51/2018 of GRAMA NYAYALAYA, EDAPPAL

¶7

CRIME NO. 247/2018 OF PONNANI POLICE STATION , MALAPPURAM

¶8

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

¶9

SULTHAN SADATH AGED 42 YEARS

¶10

S/O.KUNJI MUHAMMED, PADATHAPEEDIKAYIL HOUSE, MANOORPALLY, KALADY, MALAPPURAM.

¶11

BY ADVS. SRI.TONY AUGUSTINE SHRI.SUBRAMANYAN M.P

¶12

RESPONDENTS/STATE/DE FACTO COMPLAINANT:

¶13

1 STATE OF KERALA

¶14

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

¶15

2 SARATH KRISHNA AGED 19 YEARS, S/O. UNNIKRISHNAN, KANNAYIL PARAMBIL HOUSE, MUROOR P.O,PARA, MALAPPURAM679578.

¶16

BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE RENOY

¶17

SRI AJITH MURALI PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶18

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

¶19

Crl.MC.No. 1548 of 2019

¶20

¶21

ORDER

¶22

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

¶23

The petitioner herein is the accused in S.T. No.51 of 2018 of the Grama Nyalaya, Edappal. In the aforesaid case, he is being proceeded against for having committed offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 506(1) of the IPC.

¶24

The allegation is that on 12.06.2018 at noon, the petitioner wrongfully restrained the de facto complainant and assaulted him.

¶25

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

¶26

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the victim and the offender have arrived at a compromise and narrating 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 the affidavit and it is submitted that the parties have not only buried the

¶27

Crl.MC.No. 1548 of 2019

¶28

¶29

hatchet, but also have decided to live peacefully in future. According to the learned counsel, no purpose would be served in dragging these proceedings.

¶30

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.

¶31

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.

¶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

¶34

Crl.MC.No. 1548 of 2019

¶35

¶36

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 petitioner 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.

¶37

In the result, this petition is allowed. Annexure-A1 final report and all further proceedings pursuant thereto against the petitioner now pending as S.T. No.51 of 2018 on the file of Grama Nyayalaya, Edappal are quashed.

¶38

Sd/-

¶39

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶40

JUDGE

¶41

IAP

¶42

Crl.MC.No. 1548 of 2019

¶43

¶44