The High Court of Kerala, Erlakulam allowed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings. The offenses were personal, injuries were not grave, and parties had settled. The court held quashing would bring peace and serve community interest.
The final report and all further proceedings in C.C. No. 1395 of 2018 are quashed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
THURSDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF JUNE 2019 / 30TH JYAISHTA, 1941
Crl.MC.No.1640 of 2019
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC 1395/2018 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -II, KANNUR
CRIME NO.565/2016 OF IRIKKUR POLICE STATION, KANNUR
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
SHAFEER N., AGED 26 YEARS, S/O. MUHAMMED V.V., NAROTH HOUSE, PADIYOOR AMSOM, PEDAYANGOD, KANNUR DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SRI.V.A.SATHEESH
RESPONDENTS/STATE:
1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM THROUGH S.H.O. IRIKKUR POLICE STATION, KANNUR DISTRICT.
2 LOHITHAKSHAN.K.P., S/O. KUMARAN, AGED 23 YEARS, THENGALAKATH HOUSE, PADIYOOR AMSOM, PEDAYANGOD, PADIYOOR P.O, KANNUR DISTRICT-670703.
3 MUHAMMED SUHAIL.P.V, S/O. KHADER, AGED 25 YEARS, AMBILOTH HOUSE, PADIYOOR AMSOM, PEDAYANGOD, PADIYOOR P.O, KANNUR DISTRICT-670703
BY ADV. SRI.V.T.MADHAVANUNNI
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI. AJITH MURALI PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20.06.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.MC.No.1640 of 2019
..2..
ORDER
This petition is filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.
..3..
Crl.MC.No.1640 of 2019
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.
..4..
Crl.MC.No.1640 of 2019
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 victims 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.
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. 1395 of 2018 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Kannur are quashed.
SD/-
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V., JUDGE
Bka/20.06.2019
//TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE
Crl.MC.No.1640 of 2019
..5..
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
ANNEXURE A1 TRUE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR ALONG WITH FIS IN CRIME NO.565/2016 OF IRIKKUR POLICE STATION. ANNEXURE A2 TRUE CERTIFIED COPY OF PAGES CONTAINING COLUMN NO.1 TO 9 AND 13 TO 18 OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO.565/2016 OF IRIKKUR POLICE STATION. ANNEXURE A3 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO OF EVIDENCE IN CRIME NO.565/2016 IRIKKUR POLICE STATION. ANNEXURE A4 TRUE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER IN C.C.NO.1710/2016 OF JFCM COURT II, KANNUR.
3 issues framed by the court
Whether criminal proceedings under Sections 323, 324 and 341 should be quashed due to settlement between parties.
Whether the offences are personal in nature and do not affect public peace warranting quashing.
Whether the possibility of conviction is remote and continuing proceedings would cause oppression.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Gian Singh v. State of PunjabRelied on¶31
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab [(2012) 10 SCC 303] · Who else cites this
Parbatbhai Aahir v. State of GujaratRelied on¶31
Parbatbhai Aahir v. State of Gujarat [2017 (12) SCALE 187]
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Shafeer N.
State of Kerala
Lohithakshan.K.P.
Muhammad Suhail.P.V
Raja Vijayaraghavan V
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
