Allowed

Amal, v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC3 Jul 2019Crl.MC/1597/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a petition under Section 482 CrPC to quash criminal proceedings against the petitioner for alleged intimidation and assault. Finding the dispute personal in nature and amicable resolution reached, the court held quashing would bring peace and avoid futile prosecution.

What did the court decide?

The criminal proceedings in C.C. No.735/2017 are quashed, and the final report and further proceedings against the petitioner are dismissed.

Amal, 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 RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 03RD DAY OF JULY 2019 / 12TH ASHADHA, 1941

¶5

Crl.MC.No.1597 of 2019

¶6

C.C. NO.735/2017 ON THE FILES OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-III, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶7

CRIME NO.993/2014 OF MUSEUM POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

¶8

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

¶9

AMAL, AGED 32 YEARS, S/O. SOMAN, TC 12/937, BARTON HILL, KUNNUKUZHI WARD, TEMPORARILY RESIDING AT TNRA, E-4, SAJU NILAYAM, NETTAYAM WARD, NEAR KACHANI SCHOOL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶10

BY ADVS. SRI.VISHAK.K.JOHNSON SRI.S.NITHIN (ANCHAL)

¶11

RESPONDENTS/STATE AND DE FACTO COMPLAINANT:

¶12

1 THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY HTE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 682 031. (ON BEHALF OF THE INVESTIGATING OFFICER IN CRIME NO. 993/2014 OF MUSEUM POLICE STATION).

¶13

2 JOSEKUTTY, S/O. SAMUEL, TC 12/867, BARTON HILL, KUNNUKUZHI WARD, VANCHIYOOR VILLAGE - 695 035.

¶14

R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.RAMESH CHAND

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03.07.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

CRL.MC:1597/2019

ORDER

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

¶20

The petitioner herein has approached this Court seeking to quash the proceedings pending against him as C.C. No.735 of 2017 on

¶21

the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-III, Thiruvananthapuram, wherein he faces accusations of having committed offences punishable under Section 118(d) of the Kerala Police Act and Section 506(1) of the IPC.

¶22

Brief facts of the case necessary to be noticed for considering the prayer sought for is that the petitioner herein is alleged to have called up the 2^nd respondent on his mobile phone and threatened him with dire consequences.

¶23

Heard Sri.Vishak K. Johnson, the learned counsel appearing

¶24

for the petitioner, Sri.Nebu P.Joseph, the learned counsel appearing for the 2^nd respondent and the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶25

It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the parties that the parties have managed to resolve their disputes and have agreed to live peaceably. It is asserted that in the affidavit sworn to by the 2^nd respondent, he has stated that he has no further

¶26

CRL.MC:1597/2019

¶27

¶28

grievance against the petitioner. They maintain that the termination of the criminal proceedings would resolve a festering private dispute between the parties and enable them to pursue their life as law abiding citizens. According to the learned counsel, no purpose would be served in continuing with the criminal proceedings in view of the changed circumstances.

¶29

The learned Public Prosecutor, on instructions, submitted

¶30

that the investigating officer has reported that no other crimes are registered against the petitioner. It is further submitted that the State has no serious objection in quashing the proceedings as no public interest is involved.

¶31

I have considered the submissions advanced and have perused the records. The records do not reveal that any serious injuries were sustained by the victim. 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 victims and the wrongdoer to put an end to the criminal proceedings. This view was reiterated in Parbatbhai Aahir v. State of Gujarat [2017 (12) SCALE 187] .

¶32

Having considered the submissions and on perusing the

¶33

CRL.MC:1597/2019

¶34

¶35

records, it appears that the offences are entirely personal in nature and do not affect public peace or tranquility. 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 victim 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.

¶36

In the result, this petition is allowed. Annexure-A2 final report and all further proceedings pursuant thereto against the petitioner now pending as C.C. No.735/2017 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-III, Thiruvananthapuram are quashed.

¶37

SD/-

¶38

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V., JUDGE

¶39

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

krj

CRL.MC:1597/2019

APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶45

ANNEXURE A1 TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO. 993/2014 OF MUSEUM POLICE STATION DATED 22/7/2014

¶46

ANNEXURE A2 TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN C.C. NO. 735/2017 OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-III, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶47

ANNEXURE A3 TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT OF THE DEFACTO COMPLAINANT JOSEKUTTY DATED 4/2/2019

Amal, v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amal, 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

Pradeep Vs State of Kerala

Sanjay Singh Chouhan Vs State of Kerala

Sudhakaran Vs State of Kerala

M a Jerome Vs State of Kerala

Karuppayyan Vs State of Kerala

Vadivelu Vs State of Kerala