Quashed

Shaji. R.P. v. Soudha.K.

Kerala HC5 Aug 2019Crl.MC/2260/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court quashed the FIR and pending criminal proceedings against petitioners accused under IPC sections, finding a genuine settlement between parties. The Court ruled that continuance of prosecution would waste time and serve no purpose under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of impugned FIR in Crime No.55/2019 of Badagara Police Station and all further proceedings pending against accused.

Shaji. R.P. Vs Soudha.K. — Quashing and FIR | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS

¶4

MONDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF AUGUST 2019 / 14TH SRAVANA, 1941

¶5

CRL.MC.NO.2260 OF 2019(B)

¶6

CRIME NO.55/2019 OF VADAKARA POLICE STATION , KOZHIKODE

¶7

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 TO 4:

¶8

1 SHAJI. R.P., AGED 44 YEARS, S/O.CHATHU, RAYAROTH PARAMBATH HOUSE, MANTHARATHOOR, P.O.PUTHUPPANAM, VATAKARA THALUK.

¶9

2 AJITH.K.P., AGED 37 YEARS, S/O.KUNHIKKANNAN, KALLULLA PARAMBATH HOUSE, MANTHARATHOOR, P.O.PUTHUPPANAM, VATAKARA THALUK.

¶10

3 GIREESH.K.P., AGED 40 YEARS, S/O.KRISHNAN, KALLULLA PARAMBATH HOUSE, MANTHARATHOOR, P.O.PUTHUPPANAM, VATAKARA THALUK.

¶11

4 PRASANTH.K.K, AGED 44 YEARS, S/O.KELAPPAN, KOODAKANDYIL HOUSE, MANTHARATHOOR, P.O.PUTHUPPANAM, VATAKARA THALUK.

¶12

BY ADV. SRI.ZUBAIR PULIKKOOL

¶13

RESPONDENTS/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT & STATE:

¶14

1 SOUDHA.K., AGED 46 YEARS, W/O.SALEEM, MINARVA.H.O., MATHIPARAMBATH, P.O.KARIYADU, PERINGADI, THALASSERY TALUK, PIN-673316.

¶15

2 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN-682031.

¶16

SRI.SHAMEM.M.S, ADVOCATE FOR R1, SRI.B.JAYASURYA, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR FOR R2

¶17

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05.08.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.

¶19

Crl.M.C. No. 2260 of 2019

¶20

Dated this the 5^th day of August, 2019

¶21

O R D E R

¶22

The petitioners herein are the accused in the impugned Anx.1 FIR in Crime No.55/2019 of Badagara Police Station, Kozhikode Rural district, registered for offences punishable under Secs.143, 147, 341, 294(b), 354A, 506, 509 & 149 of the IPC. It is stated that now the entire disputes between the petitioners and 1^st respondent defacto complainant have been settled amicably and that the 1^st respondent has sworn to Anx.2 affidavit before this Court, wherein it is stated that she has settled the entire disputes with the petitioners and that she has no objection for quashment of the impugned criminal proceedings pending against the petitioners. It is in the light of these aspects that the petitioners have preferred the instant Crl.M.C. with the prayer to quash the impugned criminal proceedings against them.

¶23

In a catena of decisions, the Apex Court has held that, in appropriate cases involving even non-compoundable offences, the High Court can quash prosecution by exercise of the powers

¶24

..3..

¶25

Crl.M.C. No. 2260 / 2019

¶26

under Sec.482 of the Cr.P.C., if the parties have really settled the whole dispute or if the continuance of the prosecution will not serve any purpose. Here, this Court finds a real case of settlement between the parties and it is also found that continuance of the prosecution in such a situation will not serve any purpose other than wasting the precious time of the court, when the case ultimately comes before the court. On a perusal of the petition and on a close scrutiny of the investigation materials on record and the affidavit of settlement and taking into account the attendant facts and circumstances of this case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the legal principles laid down by the Apex Court in the cases as in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab reported in 2013 (1) SCC (Cri) 160 = (2012) 10 SCC 303 and Narinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and anr . reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466, more particularly paragraph 29 thereof, could be applied in this case to consider the prayer for quashment.

¶27

Accordingly, it is ordered in the interest of justice that the impugned Anx.1 FIR in Crime No.55/2019 of Badagara Police

¶28

..4..

¶29

Crl.M.C. No. 2260 / 2019

¶30

Station, Kozhikode Rural district, and all further proceedings arising therefrom pending against the accused persons will stand quashed.

¶31

The petitioners will produce certified copies of this order before Investigating Officer concerned and the competent court below concerned. The office of the Advocate General will forward copy of this order to the Investigating Officer concerned for information.

¶32

With these observations and directions, the above Criminal Miscellaneous Case stands finally disposed of.

¶33

Sd/-

¶34

ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE

¶35

MMG

¶36

Crl.M.C. No. 2260 / 2019

¶37

..5..

¶38

APPENDIX

¶39

PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:

¶40

ANNEXURE 1 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME 55/2019 OF VATAKARA POLICE STATION.

¶41

ANNEXURE 2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT OF 1ST RESPONDENT

Shaji. R.P. v. Soudha.K.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shaji. R.P. v. Soudha.K.

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

Shafaf P.K., Vs State of Kerala

Subin Chandran @ Subin.K.C Vs State of Kerala

Muraleedharan P.K. Vs State of Kerala

George Abraham Vs Prince Abraham George ( Minor)

George Abraham Vs Prince Abraham George (Minor)

Siddique Vs State of Kerala