Quashed

Aneesh v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC23 Oct 2019Crl.MC/7145/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala quashed criminal proceedings against four petitioners accused under IPC sections 341, 323, 506(i), 498A, 325, and 34. Relying on a valid settlement agreement reached through court-mediated mediation, the court held that continuing prosecution served no purpose and granted the petition for quashment under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

What did the court decide?

The impugned FIR (Crime No.790/2017) and the instituted Final Report (C.C.No.896/2017) and all subsequent proceedings against the accused are quashed.

Aneesh Vs State of Kerala — Matrimonial and Divorce | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF OCTOBER 2019 / 1ST KARTHIKA, 1941

¶5

Crl.MC.No.7145 OF 2017

¶6

CRIME NO.790/2017 OF ELAMAKKARA POLICE STATION, Ernakulam

¶7

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.1 TO 4:

¶8

1 ANEESH,AGED 32 YEARS,S/O.ASHOKAN,VALIYAPARAMBIL HOUSE,KARUKUNNU,KARUMALOOR,ALUVA WEST,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.Q

¶9

2 ASHOKAN,AGED 57 YEARS,VALIYAPARAMBIL HOUSE,KARUKUNNU,KARUMALOOR,ALUVA WEST,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶10

3 GEETHA ASHOKAN,W/O.ASHOKAN,AGED 52 VALIYAPARAMBIL HOUSE,KARUKUNNU,KARUMALOOR,ALUVA WEST,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶11

4 SARITHA,W/O.VIJU.M.A,MOLEL HOUSE,PANICHAYAM,ASAMANNUR.P.O,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶12

BY ADVS. SRI.ANOOP.V.NAIR SRI.V.MANOJKUMAR SRI.R.SREEHARI SRI.M.V.SURESH (KANNUR) SRI.V.K.SREEJITH SMT.M.SRUTHI DAS

¶13

RESPONDENT/S:

¶14

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

¶15

2 SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,ELAMAKKARA POLICE STATION,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶16

3 EMILY STANLY,D/O.STANLY,EDAYAPPILLY HOUSE,PONEKKARA,PERUMANATHAZHAN ROAD,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶17

R1 BY ADV. SMT.K.DEEPA PAYYANUR R1 BY ADV. SMT.A.D.DIVYA R3 BY ADV. SMT.K.DEEPA (PAYYANUR)

¶18

OTHER PRESENT:

¶19

SRI.SAIGI JACOB PALATTY, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶20

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23.10.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

Crl.M.C.No.7145/2019

¶22

¶23

ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.

¶24

Crl.M.C.No.7145 of 2017

¶25

Dated this the 23^rd day of October, 2019

¶26

ORDER

¶27

The petitioner herein is the accused in the impugned Anx-I FIR in Crime No.790/2017 of Elamakkara Police Station, Ernakulam District, which has been registered for offences punishable under Secs.341, 323, 506 (i), 498A, 325 and 34 of the I.P.C on the basis of a complaint filed by the 3^rd respondent/defacto complainant and which has led to the institution of Anx-II Final Report in C.C.No.896/2017 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Aluva.

¶28

Now it is submitted by Sri. Anoop. V. Nair, learned Advocates appearing for the petitioners (accused Nos.1 to 4) and Smt. K. Deepa (Payyannur), learned Advocate appearing for R3 that pursuant to the mediation process effected by the mediation centre attached to this Court, the entire disputes between the parties have been resolved and 3^rd respondent has no objection in quashment of the impugned criminal proceedings in this case on the ground of settlement. The mediation centre has also made available the terms of settlement between the parties, which has been signed by both sides and the same reads as follows:

¶29

Crl.M.C.No.7145/2019

¶30

¶31

“It is agreed between the parties to settle the entire disputes between them on the following conditions:

¶32

1. The 1^st petitioner/Husband shall pay a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- (Rupees Two lakh fifty thousand only) to the 3^rd respondent for enabling her to take all ornaments pledged by her, within a period of four months from today. In default the 3^rd respondent is entitled to recover the said amount with 12% interest per annum from the 1^st petitioner. There will not be any monetary claim against the 1^st petitioner after this payment by the 3^rd Respondent.

¶33

2. The 3^rd respondent is withdrawing all her allegations made in the complaint arising out of this case against the petitioners and therefore has no objection in quashing the proceedings including any further final report if any filed.”

¶34

It is in the light of the above aspects that the petitioners have preferred the instant Crl.M.C. with the prayer to quash the impugned criminal proceedings against them.

¶35

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 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 affidavits 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

¶36

Crl.M.C.No.7145/2019

¶37

¶38

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.

¶39

Accordingly, it is ordered in the interest of justice that the impugned Anx-I FIR in Crime No.790/2017 of Elamakkara Police Station, Ernakulam District, which has led to the institution of Anx-II Final Report in C.C.No.896/2017 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Aluva and all further proceedings arising therefrom pending against the accused will stand quashed.

¶40

The petitioners will produce certified copy of this order before the court below concerned as well as the Investigating officer concerned. The office of the Advocate General will also forward a certified copy of this order to the Investigating Officer concerned.

¶41

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

¶42

sd/-

¶43

ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE.

acd

Crl.M.C.No.7145/2019

APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶49

ANNEXURE I TRUE COPY OF FIR AND THE ADDITIONAL REPORT ALONG WITH THE STATEMENT OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT SUBMITTED BEFORE THE JFCM COURT-II,ALUVA.

¶50

Annexure-II CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT FILED IN C.C.NO.896/2017 ON THE FILE OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURTII, ALUVA.

Aneesh v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aneesh 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Somarajan Vs State of Kerala

Shiras Shamsuddin Vs State of Kerala

Mathew N.Thomas Vs State of Kerala

Dr.Anwar Hussain, Vs the Sub Inspector of Police

Vivek Ramakrishnan Vs State of Kerala

Dr.Anwar Hussain Vs Sona Noushad