Allowed

Antony Jayan v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC26 Mar 2019Crl.MC/1646/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed criminal proceedings initiated against four accused persons under Sections 323, 324, 326, 308 IPC. The court held that the offences were personal in nature, a genuine compromise existed between parties, and continuing the prosecution would serve no purpose. Relief was granted under Section 482 CrPC.

What did the court decide?

Final report and all further proceedings against the petitioners in S.C. No. 760 of 2018 are quashed.

Antony Jayan 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

TUESDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 / 5TH CHAITHRA, 1941

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 1646 of 2019

¶6

IN SC 760/2018 OF THE PRINCIPAL ASSISTANT SESSIONS COURT, NORTH PARAVUR

¶7

CRIME NO. 271/2016 OF VARAPPUZHA POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT

¶8

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO.1 TO 4:

¶9

1 ANTONY JAYAN, S/O.JOSEPH, AGED 38 YEARS, CHEEVELIL HOUSE, KOTHAD P.O, KADAMAKUDY VILLAGE, PIN-682027, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶10

2 SHIJO JOSEPH @ APPAKALA, AGED 30 YEARS, PUTHENANAGADY HOUSE, KOTHAD P.O, KADAMAKUDY VILLAGE, PIN-682027, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶11

3 SHAN THOMAS, AGED 30 YEARS, CHAMMANIYODATH HOUSE, KOTHAD P.O, KADAMAKUDY VILLAGE, PIN-682027, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶12

4 SHARAN JOSEPH, AGED 26 YEARS, CHERIYAKADAVIL HOUSE, KOTHAD P.O, KADAMAKUDY VILLAGE, PIN-682027, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶13

BY ADV. SRI.ABHILASH JOSE

¶14

RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANTS:

¶15

1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, REP BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VARAPUZHA POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-682027.

¶16

CRL.MC:1646/2019

¶17

¶18

2 LAWRENCE FERNANDAZ, S/O. JOSEPH, AGED 30 YEARS, PANDARAPARAMBIL HOUSE, MOOLAMPILLYKARA, KADAMAKUDY VILLAGE, KANAYANOOR TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-682027.

¶19

3 JOHN LIBIN @ ACHA, S/O. AUGASTINE, AGED 30 YEARS, MALIYAKKAL HOUSE, MOOLAMPILLYKARA, KADAMAKUDY VILLAGE, KANAYANOOR TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-682027.

¶20

4 NIRMAL SHAJI,

¶21

S/O. SHAJI, VALAPILLA HOUSE, VADUTHALAKARA, CHERANALLOR VILLAGE,KANAYANNOOR TALUK, PIN-682023, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶22

5 JOXY THOMAS, S/O. JOY, AGED 27 YEARS, THYKOOTHATHIL HOUSE, VADUTHALAKARA, CHERANALLOR VILLAGE, KANAYANOOR TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-682023.

¶23

6 GEORGE YAFAYAS, S/O. JOY, AGED 25 YEARS, THOPPIL HOUSE, VADUTHALAKARA, CHERANALLOOR VILLAGE, KANAYANOOR TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-682023.

¶24

BY ADV. SRI.V.S.NEENESHKUMAR

¶25

OTHER PRESENT:

¶26

R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. AJITH MURALI

¶27

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26.03.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

CRL.MC:1646/2019

ORDER

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

¶32

The petitioners herein are the accused Nos.1 to 4 in S.C. No.760 of 2018 on the file of the Principal Assistant Sessions Court, North Paravur. In the aforesaid case, they are being proceeded against for having committed offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 326 & 308 r/w. Section 34 of the IPC.

¶33

On 28.3.2016 at about 12.30 am, the petitioners are alleged to have manhandled the respondents 2 to 6 and caused injuries.

¶34

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

¶35

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the victims and the offenders have arrived at a compromise and narrating the said fact, the victims have filed affidavits before this Court. According to the learned counsel, the records would reveal that no serious injuries were sustained by the victims. The termination of

¶36

CRL.MC:1646/2019

¶37

¶38

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

¶39

The learned counsel appearing for respondents 2 to 6 would also refer to the affidavits 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.

¶40

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.

¶41

It is thus borne out from the submissions made at the 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.

¶42

9. In Gian Singh v. State of Punjab [(2012) 10 SCC 303],

¶43

the Apex Court has held that in appropriate cases, the High Court can

¶44

CRL.MC:1646/2019

¶45

¶46

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] .

¶47

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 tranquility. 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.

¶48

In the result, this petition is allowed. Annexure-2 final report and all further proceedings pursuant thereto against the petitioners now

¶49

CRL.MC:1646/2019

¶50

¶51

pending as S.C. No.760 of 2018 on the file of the Principal Assistant Sessions Court, North Paravur are quashed.

¶52

SD/-

¶53

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V., JUDGE

¶54

krj

¶55

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

CRL.MC:1646/2019

APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶60

ANNEXURE-1 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIRST INFORMATION REPORT (CRIME NO. 271/2016 OF VARAPUZHA POLICE STATION) DATED 28.03.2016. ANNEXURE-2 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE VARAPUZHA POLICE STATION DATED 07.11 2016 (S.C.NO.7650/2018 OF PRL.ASSISTANT SESSIONS COURT, N.PARAVUR). ANNEXURE 3 (A), 3(B), ORIGINAL OF AFFIDAVITS DATED SWORN BY THE 3(C),3(D),3(E) RESPONDENTS 2 TO 6.

¶61

RESPONDENTS’ EXHIBITS:-NIL

Antony Jayan v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Antony Jayan 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

Vinod Vs State of Kerala

Shajimon Vs State of Kerala

Ibrahim Shameem Vs Abdul Rahiman

Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Ltd. Vs State of Kerala

Abdul Arshad @ Arshad, Vs State of Kerala

K.J.Abraham Vs State of Kerala