Allowed

Pradeep v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC9 Dec 2019Crl.MC/7049/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Criminal Misc. Case No. 7049 of 2019(A), the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam exercised its inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings instituted against petitioners accused of voluntarily causing hurt and illegal confinement. The court upheld the petitioners' submission that the parties had reached a voluntary and genuine compromise, the offences were purel

What did the court decide?

Criminal proceedings in Crime No.939/2013 of PuthenvelikkaraPolice Station against the petitioners were quashed.

Pradeep 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 09TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2019 / 18TH AGRAHAYANA, 1941

¶5

Crl.MC.No.7049 OF 2019(A)

¶6

CRIME NO.939/2013 OF Puthenvelikkara Police Station, Ernakulam

¶7

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED:

¶8

1 PRADEEP, AGED 32 YEARS, S/O.MATHEW, KUNATHOOR(H), PUTHENVELIKARA VILLAGE, NORTH PARAVUR TALUK.

¶9

2 PRASHANTH, AGED 34 YEARS, S/O.MATHEW, KUNATHOOR(H), PUTHENVELIKARA VILLAGE, NORTH PARAVUR TALUK.

¶10

3 DOMNIC @ KUNJACHAN, AGED 60 YEARS, S/O.FRANCIS, KUNATHOOR(H), PUTHENVELIKARA VILLAGE, NORTH PARAVUR TALUK.

¶11

BY ADVS. SRI.M.VIVEK SRI.M.R.MADHU SMT.TINTU.T.PANICKER

¶12

RESPONDENTS/STATE AND DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:

¶13

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

¶14

2 SHEPHIN, AGED 25 YEARS, S/O.JOSEPH, PADAMATTUMMALL (H), PANJIPALLA KARA, PUTHENVELIKARA VILLAGE-683594.

¶15

R2 BY ADV. K.V.DEEPU

¶16

R1 BY SMT M.K PUSHPALATHA, SENIOR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶17

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09.12.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

Crl.MC.No.7049 OF 2019(A)

¶19

¶20

ORDER

¶21

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

¶22

The petitioners herein are the accused in Crime No.939 of 2013 of Puthenvelikkara. In the aforesaid case, they are being proceeded against for having committed offences punishable under Sections 323, 324 and 341 r/w. Section 34 of the IPC.

¶23

On 05.12.2013 at about 7.30 p.m., due to previous enmity,

¶24

the petitioners are alleged to have wrongfully restrained the 2^nd respondent and attacked him with a torch causing injuries.

¶25

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, the party respondent and the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶26

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted

¶27

that the victim and the offenders 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

¶28

Crl.MC.No.7049 OF 2019(A)

¶29

¶30

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.

¶31

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.

¶32

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

¶33

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.

¶34

In Gian Singh v. State of Punjab [(2012) 10 SCC 303], the Apex Court has held that in appropriate cases, the High Court can

¶35

Crl.MC.No.7049 OF 2019(A)

¶36

¶37

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 and Another [(2014) 9 SCC 653] .

¶38

Having considered the submissions advanced 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 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 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.

¶39

In the result, this petition is allowed. Annexure-A first information Report in Crime No.939 of 2013 of the Puthenvelikara Police Station and

¶40

Crl.MC.No.7049 OF 2019(A)

¶41

¶42

all further proceedings pursuant thereto against the petitioners are

¶43

quashed.

¶44

SD/-

¶45