Allowed

Prajin Francis v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC18 Mar 2019Crl.MC/1643/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal miscellaneous petition under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of proceedings for assault, the High Court of Kerala allowed the petition upon finding that a genuine compromise was reached by the parties, no serious injuries were sustained, and the offences were personal in nature with no public interest involved.

What did the court decide?

The petition was allowed and all further proceedings pending as C.C. No. 743 of 2015 were quashed.

Prajin Francis Vs State of Kerala — Cheque Dishonour | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶4

MONDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 / 27TH PHALGUNA, 1940

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 1643 of 2019

¶6

CC NO.743/2015 of JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-III, NORTH PARAVUR

¶7

CRIME NO. 794/2013 OF VARAPUZHA POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM

¶8

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO.1 TO 3:

¶9

1 PRAJIN FRANCIS, AGED 27 YEARS, S/O. FRANCIS, EDATHIL HOUSE, PIZHALA P.O, KADAMAKUDY VILLAGE, PIN-682027, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶10

2 GODSON, AGED 27 YEARS, S/O. ALEX, KADAVIL HOUSE, PIZHALA P.O, KADAMAKUDY VILLAGE, PIN-682027, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶11

3 TINKU, AGED 27 YEARS, S/O.JOHNSON, THATTASERY HOUSE, PIZHALA P.O, KADAMAKUDY VILLAGE, PIN-682027, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶12

BY ADV. SRI.ABHILASH JOSE

¶13

RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANTS:

¶14

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM, REP BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VARAPUZHA POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-682 027.

¶15

2 SUJITH, S/O. GOKULDAS, AGED 33 YEARS, THERUVIPARAMBIL HOUSE, PIZHALAKARA, KADAMAKUDY VILLAGE, KANAYANOOR TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-682 027.

¶16

R2 BY ADV. SRI.P.ANTONY GEORGE R1 BY SRI RAMESH CHAND, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶17

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18.03.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

Crl.MC.No. 1643 of 2019

¶19

¶20

ORDER

¶21

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

¶22

The petitioners herein are the accused in C.C. No.743 of 2015 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-III, North Paravur. In the aforesaid case, they are being proceeded against for having committed offences punishable under Sections 341 and 324 r/w. Section 34 of the IPC.

¶23

On 01.08.2013 at around 8.45 a.m., the petitioners are alleged to have assaulted the 2^nd respondent causing injuries.

¶24

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

¶25

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the victim and the offenders 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

¶26

Crl.MC.No. 1643 of 2019

¶27

¶28

the victim. The termination of proceedings would resolve a festering private dispute between the parties and it is prayed that the proceedings be quashed.

¶29

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 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

¶32

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.

¶33

In Gian Singh v. State of Punjab [(2012) 10 SCC 303], the Apex Court has held that in appropriate cases, the High

¶34

Crl.MC.No. 1643 of 2019

¶35

¶36

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] .

¶37

Having considered the submissions advanced and on perusing the records, it appears that the offences are entirely personal in nature and do not affect public peace or tranquillity. The injuries allegedly inflicted by the petitioners 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.

¶38

Crl.MC.No. 1643 of 2019

¶39

¶40

In the result, this petition is allowed. Annexure-2 final report and all further proceedings pursuant thereto against the petitioners now pending as C.C. No. 743 of 2015 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-III, North Paravur are quashed.

¶41

SD/-

¶42

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V.,

¶43

JUDGE

¶44

DSV/18.3.19

¶45

Crl.MC.No. 1643 of 2019

¶46

¶47