The High Court of Kerala quashed the Final Report and all proceedings under Sections 447, 506 (ii), and 34 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act against six accused following an affidavit by the defacto complainant stating that the entire dispute was settled amicably.
Impugned Final Report and all proceedings against accused Nos 1 4 5 6 7 and 8 were quashed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS
FRIDAY, THE 08TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2019 / 17TH KARTHIKA, 1941
Crl.MC.No.7793 OF 2019(D)
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC 1565/2017 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS ,THIRUVALLA
CRIME NO.1678/2016 OF Pulikeezhu Police Station , Pathanamthitta
PETITIONER/ACCUSED NOS. 1, 4, 5, 6, 7 & 8:
1 BHAGYANATH AGED 20 YEARS
S/O. GOPALAN, ADICHIRA HOUSE, PADINJATTUM MURI, NIRANAM VILLAGE, PATHANAMTHITTA.
2 VISHNU AGED 21 YEARS S/O. GANESH, THANNIMOOTIL HOUSE, NALKKAVALA, PADINJATTUM MURI, PATHANAMTHITTA.
S/O.SUNNY, VARISSERIL HOUSE, MALLISSERYPADI, KIZHAKKUM MURI, NIRANAM VILLAGE, PATHANAMTHITTA.
4 SUMITH ABRAHAM AGED 24 YEARS S/O. BEL SINGH, THITTAYIL HOUSE, NALKKAVALA, PADINJATTUM MURI, NIRANAM VILLAGE, PATHANAMTHITTA.
5 ROSHAN, AGED 24 YEARS S/O. PHILIPPOSE, PARUTHIKKAL HOUSE, KOMBANKERI, PADINJATTUM MURI, NIRANAM VILLAGE, PATHANAMTHITTA.
6 SIJO P SAMUEL, AGED 21 YEARS S/O. KOSHY, SHARON VILLA, THEKKEKKARA MURI, PUNNAMOODU, MAVELIKKARA VILLAGE,
BY ADV. SRI.C.S.SUMESH
RESPONDENTS/STATE & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:
Crl.MC.No.7793 OF 2019(D)
2
1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031(IN CRIME NO 1678/2016 OF PULIKEEZHU POLICE STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA)
2 LISSY AGED 48, W/O. GEEVARGHESE, ADIVAKKAL HOUSE, KIZHAKKUMBHAGAM MURI, DUCK FARM, NIRANAM VILLAGE, PATHANAMTHITTA-689621.
R2 BY ADV. RAAJESH S.SUBRAHMANIAN R2 BY ADV. SRI.T.R.RAJENDRAN (THAZHATHETHIL)
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI.T.R.RENJITH, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08.11.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.MC.No.7793 OF 2019(D)
3
ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 8th day of November, 2019
O R D E R
The petitioners herein are the accused Nos.1, 4 5, 6, 7 and 8 in Crime No.1678/2016 of Pulikeezhu Police Station, Pathanamthitta district, registered for offences punishable under Secs.447, 506(ii), 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sec.27 of Arms Act, which has led to the institution of Anx-A Final Report in C.C. No.1565/2017 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Thiruvalla. It is stated that now the entire disputes between the petitioners and the 2nd respondent defacto complainant have been settled amicably and that the 2nd respondent has sworn to Anx.B 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.
Crl.MC.No.7793 OF 2019(D)
4
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.
With these observations and directions, the above Criminal Miscellaneous Case stands finally disposed of.
Sd/ALEXANDER THOMAS JUDGE
SKS
Crl.MC.No.7793 OF 2019(D)
5
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
ANNEXURE A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT NO.1239/2017 IN CRIME NO. 1678/2016 OF PULIKEEZHU POLICE STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA.
ANNEXURE B NOTARIZED AFFIDAVIT OF THE 2ND RESPONDENTFACTO COMPLAINANT DATED 30.07.2019.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the criminal proceedings initiating proceedings against accused Nos 1 4 5 6 7 and 8 be quashed upon an affidavit of settlement by the de facto complainant.
Whether the continuance of the prosecution serves any purpose given the settlement between the parties.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Gian Singh v. State of PunjabReferred¶33
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, 2013 (1) SCC (Cri) 160 · Who else cites this
Narinder Singh and others v. State of PunjabReferred¶33
Narinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and anr, 2014 6 SCC 466 · Who else cites this
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Bhagyanath and others aka Accused Nos. 1, 4, 5, 6, 7 & 8
State of Kerala
Lissy
Alexander Thomas
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
