Allowed

Krishnaraj v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC26 Jun 2019Crl.MC/1638/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a petition to quash criminal proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. where the parties resolved their private dispute, the injuries were not grave, and continuing the trial would serve no purpose except to cause oppression.

What did the court decide?

The charge sheet and all further proceedings pursuant thereto against the petitioner pending as C.C. No.12 of 2018 in the Juvenile Court are quashed.

Krishnaraj 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

WEDNESDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF JUNE 2019 / 5TH ASHADHA, 1941

¶5

Crl.MC.No.1638 of 2019

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC NO.12/2018 OF THE JUVENILE JUSTICE BOARD, ERNAKULAM

¶7

CRIME NO.2634/2017 OF ERNAKULAM CENTRAL POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM

¶8

PETITIONER/JUVENILE IN CONFLICT OF LAW:

¶9

KRISHNARAJ, AGED 18 YEARS, S/O.RAJU, KALAYIL THOLIL HOUSE, PALAI, THODANAL POST, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.DENIZEN KOMATH

¶11

RESPONDENT/S:

¶12

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, CENTRAOL POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM(CR.NO.2634/17)THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM-682031.

¶13

2 JIJO JOHN, AGED 39 YEARS, S/O.M.V.JOHN, MUDAVATHIL HOUSE, PALARIVATTOM, POONITHURA VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-682031.

¶14

BY ADV. SMT.DOLLY FRANCIS

¶15

OTHER PRESENT:

¶16

SRI. AJITH MURALI PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶17

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26.06.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

Crl.MC.No.1638 of 2019

¶19

..2..

¶20

ORDER

¶21

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

¶22

The petitioner herein has approached this Court seeking to

¶23

quash the proceedings pending against him as C.C. No. 12 of 2018 on the file of the Juvenile Court (Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Ernakulam), wherein he faces accusations of having committed offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 323, 341 and 506 of the IPC.

¶24

Brief facts of the case necessary to be noticed for considering the prayer sought for is that on 13.09.2017 at about 11.20 am, the petitioner wrongfully restrained the party respondent and he is alleged to have assaulted him causing injuries.

¶25

Heard Sri.Denizen Komath, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Smt.Dolly Francis, the learned counsel appearing for the party respondent and the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶26

It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the parties that the parties have managed to resolve their disputes and

¶27

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

¶28

..3..

¶29

Crl.MC.No.1638 of 2019

¶30

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.

¶31

The learned Public Prosecutor, on instructions, submitted 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.

¶32

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

¶33

an end to the criminal proceedings. This view was reiterated in Parbatbhai Aahir v. State of Gujarat [2017 (12) SCALE 187] .

¶34

..4..

¶35

Crl.MC.No.1638 of 2019

¶36

Having considered the submissions 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 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 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.

¶37

In the result, this petition is allowed. Annexure-A1 charge sheet and all further proceedings pursuant thereto against the petitioner now pending as C.C. No.12 of 2018 on the file of the Juvenile Court(Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Ernakulam) are quashed.

¶38

SD/-

¶39

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V., JUDGE

¶40

Bka/26.06.2019

¶41

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

¶42

Crl.MC.No.1638 of 2019

¶43

..5..

¶44

APPENDIX

¶45

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶46

ANNEXURE A-1 TRUE CERTIFICATE COPY OF THE CHARGE SHEET IN C.C.NO.12/18 OF JUVENILE COURT,ERNAKULAM.

¶47

ANNEXURE A-2 THE AFFIDAVIT EXECUTED BY 2ND RESPONDENT.

Krishnaraj v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Krishnaraj 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

Rasheed Vs State of Kerala

Muhammedali M., Vs State of Kerala

Asmabi Vs State of Kerala

K.G.Jayaprakash Vs State of Kerala

K.G. Balakrishnakurup Vs State of Kerala

K.J.Paul Vs M.D.Jose