Allowed

Akwin, v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC19 Mar 2019Crl.MC/1693/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition under Section 482 CrPC, the High Court of Kerala quashed an FIR registered under sections 323, 324, and 326 IPC arising from a personal assault, noting a genuine compromise between the accused and victim, concluding that continuation of proceedings would serve no purpose.

What did the court decide?

Annexure-I FIR and all further proceedings against the petitioner in Crime No.652 of 2018 were quashed.

Akwin, 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

TUESDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 / 28TH PHALGUNA, 1940

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 1693 of 2019

¶6

TO QUASH ANNEXURE-I FIR IN CRIME NO.652/2018 OF MALA POLICE STATION, THRISSUR DISTRICT

¶7

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

¶8

AKWIN, AGED 27 YEARS, S/O.THOMAS, KURAPPASSERI HOUSE, POYYA P.O., POYYA VILLAGE, KODUNGALLOR TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT,

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.P.K.VARGHESE

¶10

RESPONDENTS/STATE & DE FACTO COMPLAINANT:

¶11

1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031.

¶12

2 ARJUNEDHRA, AGED 21 YEARS, S/O.MOHANAN, EDATHADAN HOUSE, ALOOR P.O., ALOOR VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN-680 683.

¶13

BY ADV. SRI.R.ROHITH

¶14

OTHER PRESENT:

¶15

R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. RAMESH CHAND

¶16

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19.03.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

CRL.MC:1693/2019

ORDER

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

¶21

The petitioner herein is the accused in Crime No.652 of 2018 of the Mala Police Station registered under Sections 323, 324 and 326 of the IPC. The 2^nd respondent herein is the de facto complainant.

¶22

The prosecution allegation is that on 4.12.2018 at about 11.15 am, the petitioner attacked the 2^nd respondent causing injuries.

¶23

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

¶24

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the victim and the offender have arrived at a compromise and narrating the said fact, the victim has filed Annexure-II affidavit before this Court. According to the learned counsel, the records would reveal that no serious injuries were sustained by the victim. The termination of proceedings would resolve a festering private dispute between the parties and it is prayed that the proceedings be quashed.

¶25

The learned counsel appearing for the 2^nd respondent would

¶26

CRL.MC:1693/2019

¶27

¶28

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.

¶29

The learned Public Prosecutor, on instructions, submitted that the petitioner is a person with criminal antecedents and that the State has no grievance in quashing the proceedings as no public interest is involved.

¶30

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.

¶31

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

¶32

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

¶33

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] .

¶34

CRL.MC:1693/2019

¶35

¶36

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 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 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.

¶37

In the result, this petition is allowed. Annexure-I FIR in Crime No.652 of 2018 of the Mala Police Station and all further proceedings pursuant thereto against the petitioner are quashed.

¶38

SD/-

¶39

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V., JUDGE

¶40

KRJ

¶41

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

¶42

CRL.MC:1693/2019

¶43

¶44