Allowed

Jishnu v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC17 Jan 2019Crl.MC/469/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court quashed the prosecution against accused persons in a criminal case involving assault and affray. Relying on Supreme Court precedents, the Court found a genuine amicable settlement had occurred, rendering further prosecution unnecessary and holding no public interest involved.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed; prosecution against petitioners in C.C. No. 85/2016 quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.; petitioners released from prosecution.

Jishnu 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 P.UBAID

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF JANUARY 2019 / 27TH POUSHA, 1940

¶5

Crl.MC.No.469 of 2019

¶6

CC 85/2016 of JMFC, KALAMASSERY (TEMPORARY) CRIME NO.4/2016 OF ELOOR POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM

¶7

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED :-

¶8

1 JISHNU, AGED 21 YEARS, S/O.SURESH, ANTHIKATTU HOUSE, NEAR SNDP, PACHAMUKKU BHAGAM, ELOOR SOUTH, ELOOR VILLAGE, ELOOR, PIN – 683 501.

¶9

2 ABHILASH, AGED 24 YEARS, S/O.BIJU, VADAKKEVILA, NEAR SNDP, PACHAMUKKU BHAGAM, ELOOR SOUTH, ELOOR VILLAGE, ELOOR, PIN – 683 501.

¶10

3 MANOJ, AGED 26 YEARS, S/O.UNNI, KADEPARAMBIL HOUSE, NEAR SNDP, PACHAMUKKU BHAGAM, ELOOR SOUTH, ELOOR VILLAGE, ELOOR, PIN – 683 501.

¶11

BY ADVS.SRI.SHERRY J. THOMAS SRI.C.A.ABDUL KHADER

¶12

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS :-

¶13

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY STATION HOUSE OFFICER, DHARMADOM, THROUGH GOVT.PLEADER, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM – 682 031.

¶14

2 GIGIMON, AGED 47 YARS, S/O.THOMAS, THAIPARAMBIL HOUSE, NEAR SNDP, PACHAMUKKU BHAGAM, ELOOR SOUTH, ELOOR VILLAGE, ELOOR, PIN – 683 501.

¶15

3 ASHOKAN, AGED 36 YEARS, S/O.KUMARAN, KANNANPULANGATTU HOUSE, NEAR SNDP, PACHAMUKKU BHAGAM, ELOOR SOUTH, ELOOR VILLAGE, ELOOR, PIN – 683 501.

¶16

Crl.MC.No.469/2019

¶17

-: 2 :-

¶18

4 GOPI, AGED 38 YEARS, S/O.KUMARAN, KANNANPULANGATTU HOUSE, NEAR SNDP, PACHAMUKKU BHAGAM, ELOOR SOUTH, ELOOR VILLAGE, ELOOR, PIN – 683 501.

¶19

5 BHARATHI, AGED 65 YEARS, W/O.KUMARAN, KANNANPULANGATTU HOUSE, NEAR SNDP, PACHAMUKKU BHAGAM, ELOOR SOUTH, ELOOR VILLAGE, ELOOR, PIN – 683 501.

¶20

R2 TO R5 BY ADV. SRI.VIPIN VARGHESE R1 BY SRI.ALEX M THOMBRA, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶21

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17.01.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

Crl.MC.No.469/2019

-: 3 :-

O R D E R

The petitioners are the accused in C.C.No.85/2016 of the Judicial First Class

¶26

Magistrate Court, Kalamassery. They seek orders

¶27

quashing the prosecution on the ground of amicable settlement of the whole dispute between them and the

¶28

de facto complainant. Crime in this case was registered under Sections 341, 323, 324, 294(b) and 506(ii) IPC read with Section 34 IPC on the complaint of one Gigimon, who is the 2^nd respondent in this proceeding brought under Section 482 Cr.P.C.. He has filed affidavit to the effect that

¶29

he has settled the whole dispute with the accused, and he has no grievance or complaint now.

¶30

The other persons, who sustained injuries in the alleged incident are the respondent Nos.3 to 5 in this proceeding. They have also filed affidavit to the effect that they have settled the whole

¶31

dispute with the accused, and they have no grievance or complaint now.

¶32

Crl.MC.No.469/2019

¶33

-: 4 :-

¶34

In so many decisions, the Hon'ble Supreme

¶35

Court has held that even in cases involving noncompoundable offences, the High Court can quash the

¶36

prosecution in pending proceedings, if the parties have really settled the whole dispute amicably out of court, and continuance of the prosecution will not serve any purpose in such a circumstance of amicable settlement. Here, I find a real and

¶37

genuine case of settlement between the parties. This is not a case involving any public interest or public issue. The parties have come to terms amicably on the intervention of persons acceptable to both sides, and I am satisfied that the parties

¶38

are now on quite cordial terms. In such a situation, continuance of the prosecution will not serve any purpose other than wasting the precious

¶39

time of the court. No doubt, nobody will support

¶40

the prosecution in such a situation, if the case goes to trial.

¶41

In the result, this petition is allowed.

¶42

The prosecution against the petitioners herein in

¶43

Crl.MC.No.469/2019

¶44

-: 5 :- C.C.No.85/2016 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kalamassery will stand quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.. Accordingly, the petitioners will stand released from prosecution, and the bail bond, if any, executed by them will stand discharged.

Sd/P.UBAID JUDGE

Jvt/17.1.2019

Crl.MC.No.469/2019

-: 6 :-

APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES :-

¶51

ANNEXURE A1	THE CERTIFIED CO NO.4/2016 OF ELO	PY OR	OF THE FIR IN CRIME POLICE STATION.
ANNEXURE A2	THE CERTIFIED CO CR.4/2016.	PY	OF THE FINAL REPORT IN
ANNEXURE A3	THE ORIGINAL OF RESPONDENT.	THE	SWORN BY THE 2ND
ANNEXURE A4	THE ORIGINAL OF 3RD RESPONDENT.	THE	AFFIDAVIT IN SWORN BY THE
ANNEXURE A5	THE ORIGINAL OF 4TH RESPONDENT.	THE	AFFIDAVIT IN SWORN BY THE
ANNEXURE A6	THE ORIGINAL OF 5TH RESPONDENT.	THE	AFFIDAVIT IN SWORN BY THE

¶52

RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES :- NIL

¶53

//TRUE COPY//

¶54

P.A. TO JUDGE

Jishnu v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jishnu 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

Noushad Vs State of Kerala

Shameer Vs State of Kerala

Sanjeev Balkur Vs State of Kerala

Vishnuprasad.K, Vs State of Kerala

Santhosh.K Vs the State of Kerala

Arshad Vs State of Kerala