Dismissed

Anie Mathew@Anie v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC12 Jun 2019Crl.MC/1864/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala, in a criminal miscellaneous case, was approached by accused persons (Nos. 2-5) to quash criminal proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. based on a settlement with the victim. Citing grave allegations and conflicting submissions regarding representation and lack of approach by the first petitioner, the court held the case unfit for quashing.

What did the court decide?

The petition to quash criminal proceedings is dismissed, with rights of petitioners 2 and 3 to approach later reserved.

Anie Mathew@Anie 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 12TH DAY OF JUNE 2019 / 22ND JYAISHTA, 1941

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 1864 of 2019

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC 303/2018 of JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -II, PEERUMEDU

¶7

CRIME NO. 663/2015 OF Kumily Police Station, Idukki

¶8

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 2 TO 5:

¶9

1 ANIE MATHEW @ ANIE, AGED 43 YEARS, W/O SABU, KILIYATTU HOUSE, PULINCHODU BHAGAM, KUDAMALOOR KARA, AYMANAM VILLAGE, IDUKKI DISTRICT.

¶10

2 BINO JOSEPH @ MATHAN, AGED 45 YEARS, S/O JOSEPH, METAYIL HOUSE, PATHIYAPADVIKADAVU BHAGAM, NJALIYAKUZHI, VAKATHANAM P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.

¶11

3 JOSNA, AGED 40 YEARS, W/O BINNE JOSEPH @ MATHAN, METAYIL HOUSE, PATHIYAPADVIKADAVU BHAGAM, NJALIYAKUZHI, VAKATHANAM P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.

¶12

4 RAJAN @ RAJA, AGED 29 YEARS, S/O SELVAM, C/O KUTTY, MUNGALARKARAYIL, PERIYAR VILLAGE, IDUKKI DISTRICT.

¶13

BY ADVS. SRI.VISHNU BHUVANENDRAN SRI.P.I.GEORGEKUTTY SMT.B.ANUSREE

¶14

RESPONDENTS/STATE & DE FACTO COMPLAINANT:

¶15

1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM 31.

¶16

2 THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KUMALY POLICE STATION, IDUKKI DISTRICT-685 509.

¶17

3 SUNNI JOSEPH, AGED 60 YEARS, S/O JOSEPH, KUDAVANAPPATTU HOUSE, ANAVILASAM, KUMALY, IDUKKI DISTRICT.

¶18

BY ADV. SMT.V.P.SHEEJA

¶19

OTHER PRESENT:

¶20

SRI. AJITH MURALI-PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶21

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12.06.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

Crl.MC.1864/19

O R D E R

This petition is filed under Section 482 of the Cr.PC.

¶26

The petitioners herein are the accused Nos.2 to 5 in C.C.No.303/2018 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First ClassII, Peermedu. They have approached this court seeking to quash the entire criminal proceedings pending against them on the basis of a settlement arrived at with the victim.

¶27

In the course of proceedings, the petitioners 2 and 3 have filed separate affidavits before this Court, wherein they contended that they have not authorized any person to approach this Court and seek quashment of proceedings.

¶28

Learned Public Prosecutor has filed a statement detailing the antecedents of the first petitioner and it is contended that the allegations being grave, this Court will not be justified in quashing the proceedings.

¶29

I have considered the submissions advanced and have perused the records.

¶30

¶31

Crl.MC.1864/19

¶32

Insofar as the first petitioner is concerned, the learned Public Prosecutor has raised serious objections. Furthermore, the 1^st accused has not approached this Court seeking quashment of proceedings. The petitioners 2 and 3 have filed separate affidavits stating that they have not authorised Sri.Vishu Bhuvanendran to represent them in these proceedings. This submission is strongly refuted by Sri.Vishnu. I do not think that the said controversy should detain this Court.

¶33

Having considered all the relevant facts, this does not appear to be a fit case, wherein this Court will be justified in quashing the proceedings on the strength of a settlement.

¶34

This petition will stand dismissed. However, the rights of

¶35

the petitioners 2 and 3 to approach this Court, at a later stage, will stand reserved.

¶36

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V. , Judge

kkb.

Crl.MC.1864/19

APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶42

ANNEXURE 1 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR DATED 25.8.2015.

¶43

ANNEXURE 11 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT. ANNEXURE 111 TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 6.3.2019.

¶44

ANNEXURE-A:- TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT FILED BY BIJU MATHEW DATED 22.3.2018.

¶45

ANNEXURE-B:- TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS COURT IN B.A. NO.174 OF 2018 DATED 25.06.2018.

¶46

ANNEXURE-C:- TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN THE SECOND BAIL APPLICATION BY THE 1ST PETITIONER DATED 27.09.2018.

¶47

ANNEXURE-D:- TRUE COPY OF THE STATUS REPORT DATED 21.3.2019 IN B.A. NO.1910 OF 2019.

¶48

ANNEXURE-E:- TRUE COPY OF THE DAILY STATUS OF TE PERRUMEDU COURT DATED 1.3.2019.

¶49

RESPONDENTS’ EXHIBITS:-NIL

Anie Mathew@Anie v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anie Mathew@Anie 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

U.Gopakumar, Vs State of Kerala

Saddam Hussain Vs State of Kerala

Aniyan Koshy Vs State of Kerala

Institute of Indinsa Therapies Rep.by Is Proprietor Vs the State of Kerala

Shaji K.A Vs Prathapan V.S

Muhammed Atheekh Vs Madhurakariyan Muhammedkutty