Allowed

Sunil @ Valiyakuttan (Ai) v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC17 Jun 2019Crl.MC/2142/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed criminal proceedings against the petitioners under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Observing the dispute as personal in nature with no serious injuries and an amicable settlement, the Court held continuing trials would serve no purpose. Proceedings in C.C. 1962/2014 were quashed.

What did the court decide?

Annexure-A2 final report and all further proceedings pending as C.C. No.1962 of 2014 against petitioners are quashed.

Sunil @ Valiyakuttan (Ai) 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

MONDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF JUNE 2019 / 27TH JYAISHTA, 1941

¶5

Crl.MC.No.2142 of 2019

¶6

CC 1962/2014 of JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -II, NEYYATTINKARA

¶7

CRIME NO.101/2014 OF Thiruvallam Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram

¶8

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 TO 4:

¶9

1 SUNIL @ VALIYAKUTTAN (AI), AGED 42 YEARS, S/O.MANIYAN @ KARAYKKAMANIYAN, KUZHIVILAAKAM KUNNIL VEED, VAAZHAMUTTOM, PACHALLOOR DESOM, THIRUVALLAM VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.

¶10

2 SUJITH @ KOCHUKUTTAN (A2), AGED 40 YEARS, S/O.MANIYAN @ KARAYKKAMANIYAN, KUZHIVILAAKAM KUNNIL VEED, VAAZHAMUTTOM, PACHALLOOR DESOM, THIRUVALLAM VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.

¶11

3 SUDARSANAN @ PODIYAN(A3), AGED 37 YEARS,

¶12

S/O.MANIYAN @ KARAYKKAMANIYAN, KUZHIVILAAKAM KUNNIL VEED, VAAZHAMUTTOM, PACHALLOOR DESOM, THIRUVALLAM VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.

¶13

4 MURUKESH @ SANTHOSH (A4), AGED 37 YEARS,

¶14

S/O.RAJAN, KUNNIL VEEDU, KUHIVILAAKAM, VAAZHAMUTTOM, PACHALLOOR DESOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.

¶15

BY ADVS. SRI.BINU GEORGE SMT.P.M.PRINCY LAL

¶16

RESPONDENTS/STATE & DE FACTO COMPLAINANT:

¶17

1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031.

¶18

Crl.MC.No.2142 of 2019

¶19

¶20

2 SREEJITH, AGED 28 YEARS, S/O.SANAL KUMAR, KUZHIVILAKAMELE PUTHEN VEEDU, VAZHAMUTTOM, PACHALLOOR DESOM, THIRUVALLAM VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT-695027.

¶21

R2 BY ADV. SRI.R.RANJITH (MANJERI) R1 BY SRI AJITH MURALI, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶22

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17.06.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

Crl.MC.No.2142 of 2019

¶24

¶25

ORDER

¶26

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

¶27

The petitioners herein have approached this Court seeking to quash the proceedings pending against them as C.C. No.1962 of 2014 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Neyyattinkara, wherein they face accusations of having committed offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 341, 323 and 324 read with Section 34 of the IPC.

¶28

Brief facts of the case necessary to be noticed for considering the prayer sought for is that on 28.01.2014 at about 21.30 hours, the petitioners are alleged to have wrongfully restrained the de facto complainant and assaulted him causing injuries.

¶29

Heard Sri. Binu George, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Sri.R.Ranjith, the learned counsel appearing for the party respondent and the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶30

It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the parties that the parties have managed to resolve their disputes and have agreed to live peaceably. It is asserted that in the affidavit sworn to by the victim, he has stated that he has no further grievance against the petitioners. They maintain that the termination of the

¶31

Crl.MC.No.2142 of 2019

¶32

¶33

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.

¶34

The learned Public Prosecutor, on instructions, submitted that the investigating officer has reported that no other crimes are registered against the petitioners. It is further submitted that the State has no serious objection in quashing the proceedings as no public interest is involved.

¶35

I have considered the submissions advanced and have perused the records. The records do not reveal that any serious injuries were sustained by the victim. In Gian Singh v. State of Punjab [(2012) 10 SCC 303], 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 view was reiterated in Parbatbhai Aahir v. State of Gujarat [2017 (12) SCALE 187] .

¶36

Having considered the submissions 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

¶37

Crl.MC.No.2142 of 2019

¶38

¶39

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 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.

¶40

In the result, this petition is allowed. Annexure-A2 final report and all further proceedings pursuant thereto against the petitioners now pending as C.C. No.1962 of 2014 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Neyyattinkara are quashed.

¶41

SD/-

¶42

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V., JUDGE

¶43

DSV/17.6.19

¶44

Crl.MC.No.2142 of 2019

¶45

¶46

APPENDIX

¶47

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶48

ANNEXURE A1 CERTIFIED COPY OF FIR IN CRIME NO.101/2014 THIRUVALLAM POLICE STATION. ANNEXURE A2 CERTIFIED COPY OF FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO.101/2014 OF THIRUVALLAM POLICE STATION. ANNEXURE A3 AFFIDAVIT DATED 16.3.2019 SWORN BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶49

RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶50

NIL

¶51

//TRUE COPY//

¶52

P.A.TO JUDGE

Sunil @ Valiyakuttan (Ai) v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunil @ Valiyakuttan (Ai) 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

Padinharaeranhittil Prabhakaran Vs Varankithayakuriyil Safiya

Abdul Khader Thattathil Vs the State of Kerala

Scaria Vs State of Kerala

Manoj Vs State of Kerala

Santhosh, Vs State of Kerala

Sunil Sebastian Vs State of Kerala