Allowed

Suneesh K.T. v. Harsha K.H.

Kerala HC8 Aug 2019Crl.MC/1572/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala quashed the impugned FIR and charge sheet in a criminal case under Sections 323, 325, and 34 IPC. The Court found that the entire dispute between the accused petitioners and the respondent victims had been settled amicably, evidenced by affidavits. Consequently, it held that continuing the prosecution would serve no purpose other than wasting court time, applying establish

What did the court decide?

The impugned FIR in Crime No.341/2018 and the Final Report/charge sheet in C.C.No.182/2018, along with all further proceedings pending against the accused, were quashed.

Suneesh K.T. Vs Harsha K.H. — 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

THURSDAY, THE 08TH DAY OF AUGUST 2019 / 17TH SRAVANA, 1941

¶5

Crl.MC.No.1572 OF 2019(F)

¶6

CC 182/2018 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS ,KOLENCHERRY

¶7

CRIME NO.341/2018 OF Ramamangalm Police Station , Ernakulam

¶8

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.1 & 2:-

¶9

1 SUNEESH K.T.,AGED 35 YEARS S/O.THANKAPPAN, KALAPPURAKUDIYIL HOUSE, PAMPAKUDA.P.O, ONNAKOOR VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT686667.

¶10

2 JANAKI,AGED 58 YEARS,W/O.THANKAPPAN JOY, KALAPPURAKUDIYIL HOUSE, PAMPAKUDA.P.O, ONNAKOOR VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-686667.

¶11

BY ADV. SRI.IEANS.C.CHAMAKKALA

¶12

RESPONDENTS:

¶13

1 HARSHA K.H.,AGED 33 YEARS D/O.HARINDHARAN, KAREETHARA HOUSE, VALLARPADAM KARA, MULAVUKAD VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-682504.

¶14

2 AJITHA KUMARI,AGED 63 YEARS W/O.HARIDHARAN, KAREETHARA HOUSE, VALLARPADAM KARA, MULAVUKAD VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-682504.

¶15

3 HAREESH,AGED 33 YEARS,S/O.HARIDHARAN, KAREETHARA HOUSE, VALLARPADAM KARA, MULAVUKAD VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-682504.

¶16

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

¶17

R1-3 BY ADV. A.S.SABU

¶18

OTHER PRESENT:

¶19

SRI.A.S.SABU FOR R1 TO R3, SMT.PRIYA SHANAVAS, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR FOR R4

¶20

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08.08.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

Crl.M.C.No.1572/2019

¶22

¶23

ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.

¶24

Crl.M.C.No.1572 of 2019

¶25

Dated this the 8^th day of August, 2019

¶26

ORDER

¶27

The petitioners herein are the accused in the impugned Anx-A2 FIR in Crime No.341/2018 of Ramamangalam Police Station, Ernakulam District, registered for offence punishable under Secs.323, 325 and 34 of I.P.C, which has been registered on the basis of a complaint filed by the 1^st respondent/defacto complainant, which has led to the institution of Anx-A3 Final Report/chargesheet in C.C.No.182/2017 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kolencherry. It is stated that now the entire disputes between the petitioners and respondents 1 to 3 have been settled amicably and that respondents 1 to 3 have sworn to Anxs-A4 to A6 affidavits before this Court, wherein it is stated that they have settled the entire disputes with the petitioners and that they have no objection for quashment of the impugned criminal proceedings pending against the petitioners. It is in the light of these aspects that the petitioners have preferred the instant Crl.M.C. with the prayer to quash the impugned criminal proceedings against them.

¶28

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

¶29

Crl.M.C.No.1572/2019

¶30

¶31

High Court can quash 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 affidavits 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.

¶32

Accordingly, it is ordered in the interest of justice that the impugned Anx-A2 FIR in Crime No.341/2018 of Ramamangalam Police Station, Ernakulam District, which has led to the institution of Anx-A3 Final Report/chargesheet in C.C.No.182/2018 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kolencherry and all further proceedings arising therefrom pending against the accused will stand quashed.

¶33

Crl.M.C.No.1572/2019

¶34

¶35

The petitioners will produce certified copy of this order before the court below concerned as well as the Investigating officer concerned. The office of the Advocate General will also forward a certified copy of this order to the Investigating Officer concerned.

¶36

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

¶37

sd/-

¶38

ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE

acd

Crl.M.C.No.1572/2019

APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶44

ANNEXURE A1 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIS IN CRIME NO.341/2018 OF RAMAMANGALAM POLICE STATION.

¶45

ANNEXURE A2 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.341/2018 OF RAMAMANGALAM POLICE STATION.

¶46

ANNEXURE A3 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE CHARGE SHEET. ANNEXURE A4 AFFIDAVIT OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT ANNEXURE A5 AFFIDAVIT OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT. ANNEXURE A6 AFFIDAVIT OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶47

True Copy

¶48

P.S. To Judge.

Suneesh K.T. v. Harsha K.H.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suneesh K.T. v. Harsha K.H.

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

Raju Antony, Vs State of Kerala

Muhammed Sager, Vs State of Kerala

Sreenish, Vs State of Kerala

K.N.Sreekumar Vs Salma N.

Noufalsha Vs State of Kerala

Moidu, Vs State of Kerala