Quashed

Jeomon, v. Kerala State

Kerala HC21 May 2019Crl.MC/2735/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court quashed criminal proceedings initiated from an FIR under Sections 341, 447, and 307 of the IPC against the petitioner. Relying on settled precedents and an affidavit confirming an amicable settlement between the parties, the Court held that further prosecution would serve no purpose and ordered the quashment of the FIR and pending proceedings.

What did the court decide?

The impugned FIR No.513/2016 and all further proceedings arising therefrom pending against the accused are quashed.

Jeomon, Vs Kerala State — 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

TUESDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF MAY 2019 / 31ST VAISAKHA, 1941

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 2735 of 2019

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN SC 908/2017 of ADDITIONAL SUB COURT,NORTH PARAVUR

¶7

CRIME NO. 516/2016 OF Eloor Police Station , Ernakulam

¶8

PETITIONER/S:

¶9

JEOMON, AGED 36 YEARS S/O.JOSE, ALAPPATT HOUSE, CHIRAYAM, ALANGAD VILLAGE.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.RAJIV NAMBISAN

¶11

RESPONDENT/S:

¶12

1 KERALA STATE, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶13

2 SANU, D/O.CHANDRAN, AGED 31 YEARS, KUNNATHIPARAMBIL HOUSE, PANAIKULAM KARA, ALANGAD VILLAGE.

¶14

BY ADV. SRI.PAUL VARGHESE SRAMBICAL

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21.05.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.

¶17

================== Crl.M.C.No. 2735 of 2019 ==================

¶18

Dated this the 21^st day of May, 2019 O R D E R

¶19

The petitioner herein is the sole accused in the impugned Anx.A1 FIR in Crime No.513/2016 of Ernakulam Town North Police Station, registered for offences punishable under Secs.341, 447, 307 of the I.P.C., which has led to the institution of S.C.No.908/2017 on the file of the Addl. Asst. Sessions Court, North Paravur, on the basis of the complaint of the 2^nd respondent defacto complainant. It is stated that now the entire disputes between the petitioner and 2^nd respondent defacto complainant have been settled amicably and that the 2^nd respondent has sworn to Anx. A-2 affidavit before this Court, wherein it is stated that she has settled the entire disputes with the petitioner and that she has no objection for quashment of the impugned criminal proceedings pending against the petitioner. It is in the light of these aspects that the petitioner has preferred the instant Crl.M.C. with the prayer to quash the impugned criminal proceedings against him.

¶20

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 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

¶21

Crl.M.C.2735/19 - : 3 :-

¶22

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.

¶23

Accordingly, it is ordered in the interest of justice that the impugned Anx.A1 FIR in Crime No.513/2016 of Ernakulam Town North Police Station, which has led to the institution of S.C.No.908/2017 on the file of the Addl. Asst. Sessions Court, North Paravur, and all further proceedings arising therefrom pending against the accused will stand quashed.

¶24

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

¶25

Sd/- ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE

¶26

sdk+

¶27

Crl.M.C.2735/19 - : 4 :-

¶28

APPENDIX

¶29

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶30

ANNEXURE	A1 COPY OF FINAL	CHARGE IN S.C.908/17 ON THE
	FILE OF THE	ADDL. ASST. SESSIONS COURT,
	N.PARAVUR.
ANNEXURE	A2 AFFIDAVIT SWOR	N BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT
	SHOWING HIS WIL	LINGNESS TO SETTLE THE MATTER.

Jeomon, v. Kerala State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jeomon, v. Kerala State

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

Vino Vincent Vs State of Kerala

Muhammedali Vs Faseela

Rajyasree Bharath Poura Karthvya Nirvahana Sahaya Samithy Vs V.R. Eliyas

Vasanthi, Vs the District Police Chief

Abdul Azeez Vs Shaharban

Soumya D., Vs State of Kerala