Allowed

Vishnudhatan v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC3 Jun 2019Crl.MC/2162/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner accused in criminal case filed petition seeking quashing of FIR based on compromise between victim and accused. Court observed offenses were personal, injuries not grave, and public interest not involved. Allowed petition and quashed proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Annexure-A1 FIR and all further proceedings pursuant thereto against the petitioner were quashed.

Vishnudhatan Vs the 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 03RD DAY OF JUNE 2019 / 13TH JYAISHTA, 1941

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 2162 of 2019

¶6

CRIME NO. 79/2018 OF MARANALLOR POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

¶7

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

¶8

VISHNUDHATAN, AGED 18 YEARS, S/O.TULASI, AJITHA BHAVAN, OORUTTAMBALAM P.O., MARANALLOOR, TRIVANDRUM.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.M.R.SARIN

¶10

RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT:

¶11

1 THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,

¶12

HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶13

2 AJITHKUMAR,

¶14

S/O.SREEVARDHAN, RAGHAVA NIVAS, NEPPEKONAM, OORUTTAMBALAM P.O., MARANALLOOR, TRIVANDRUM.

¶15

R2 BY ADV. SMT.S.GREESHMA SHANMUKHAN R1 BY SRI AJITH MURALI, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶16

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03.06.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

Crl.MC.No. 2162 of 2019

¶18

¶19

ORDER

¶20

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

¶21

The petitioner herein is the accused in Crime No.79 of 2018 of the Maranalloor Police Station registered under Sections 294(b), 447, 427, 308 and 506(i) of the IPC.

¶22

On 03.02.2019 at 10.30 p.m., the petitioner is alleged to have trespassed into the house of the de facto complainant and assaulted him. It is also alleged that the petitioner committed mischief and caused loss to the tune of Rs.1,500/-.

¶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 an 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

Crl.MC.No. 2162 of 2019

¶26

¶27

The learned counsel appearing for the 2^nd respondent would also refer to the affidavit sworn to by the victim 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.

¶28

The learned Public Prosecutor, on instructions, submitted that the petitioner is not a person with criminal antecedents and that the State has no grievance in quashing the proceedings as no public interest is involved.

¶29

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.

¶30

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

¶31

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 Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab [(2014) 6 SCC 466] and Yogendra Yadav and Others v. State of Jharkhand

¶32

Crl.MC.No. 2162 of 2019

¶33

¶34

and Another [(2014) 9 SCC 653] .

¶35

Having considered the submissions advanced and after 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.

¶36

In the result, this petition is allowed. Annexure-A1 FIR in Crime No.79 of 2018 of the Maranalloor Police Station and all further proceedings pursuant thereto as against the petitioner are quashed.

¶37

Sd/-

¶38

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V., JUDGE

¶39

DSV/4.6.19

¶40

Crl.MC.No. 2162 of 2019

¶41

¶42

APPENDIX

¶43