Allowed

Prajeesh.P.Unnithan v. Ratheesh

Kerala HC2 Dec 2020Crl.MC/1046/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam, allowed a petition under Crl.M.C.No.1046 of 2020(A) to quash criminal proceedings for offences under Sections 323, 324, and 328 IPC. Relying on Madan Mohan Abbot and Gian Singh, the Court held that since the dispute was settled and no public interest was involved, continuance of proceedings would amount to an abuse of process.

What did the court decide?

The prayer for quashing the proceedings in C.C.No.120/2018 is allowed and the proceedings are quashed.

Prajeesh.P.Unnithan Vs Ratheesh — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 02ND DAY OF DECEMBER 2020 / 11TH AGRAHAYANA, 1942

¶5

Crl.MC.No.1046 OF 2020(A)

¶6

AGAINST THEJUDGMENT IN CC 120/2018 OF CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE PATHANAMTHITTA

¶7

CRIME NO.2037/2017 OF Pathanamthitta Police Station , Pathanamthitta

¶8

PETITIONER/ACCUSED NOS. 1 TO 4:

¶9

1 PRAJEESH.P.UNNITHAN AGED 29 YEARS S/O.PRASANNA KUMAR, MUKKUZHIKKALKIZHAKETHIL HOSUE, ERAM PO, MALAYALAPPUZHA VILLAGE, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT PIN-689664

¶10

2 RONY ALEXANDER AGED 28 YEARS S/O.ALEXANDER, RESIDING AT MELEPARAMBIL HOUSE, PUTHUKULAM, ERA PO, MALAYALAPUZHA VILLAGE, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT PIN-689664

¶11

3 KANNAN AGED 26 YEARS

¶12

S/O.MOHANAN D, AYILKUNNATUKIZHAKKETHIL HOUSE, MALAYALAPPUZHA ERAM.P.O, PUTHUKKULAM, MALAYALAPPUZHA VILLAGE, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT PIN-689664

¶13

4 AJEESH AGED 28 YEARS S/O.SUKESH, ANEESHBHAVAN, MALAYALAPPUZHA, MALAYALAPUZHA ERAM.P.O., PUTHUKKULAM, MALAYALAPPUZHA VILLAGE, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN-689664

¶14

BY ADV. SRI.N.BIJA KRISHNA

¶15

RESPONDENT/DE FACTO COMPLAINANT AND STATE :

¶16

1 RATHEESH

¶17

AGED 37 YEARS S/O.SASIDHARAN, PERUNTHOLIL HOUSE, PUTHUKULAM ERUM PO MALAYALAPUZHA VILLAGE, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT PIN-689664

¶18

Crl.MC.No.1046 OF 2020(A) ..2..

¶19

2 JISHNU

¶20

AGED 22 YEARS S/O.RAJAN, PEZHUMOOTIL HOSUE, PUTHUKULAM ERUM PO MALAYALAPUZHA VILLAGE, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT PNI689664

¶21

3 SUNIL M.V. @ KUTHANI AGED 41 YEARS S/O.VASUDEVAN, MENIPUZHATHARAIL, PUTHUKULAM ERUM PO MALAYALAPUZHA VILLAGE, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT PN689664

¶22

4 VISHNU

¶23

AGED 24 YEARS

¶24

S/O.RAJAN, PEZHUMOOTTIL HOUSE, PUTHUKULAM, ERUM PO MALAYALAPUZHA VILLAGE, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT PIN689664

¶25

5 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031

¶26

R1-4 BY ADV. M.T.SURESHKUMAR

¶27

OTHER PRESENT:

¶28

SR.PP.C.S.HRITHWIK;SR.PP.AMJAD ALI

¶29

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02.12.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶30

Crl.MC.No.1046 OF 2020(A) ..3..

¶31

ORDER

¶32

Dated this the 2nd day of December 2020

¶33

Petitioners are the accused in Crime

¶34

No.2037/2020 registered at the Pathanamthitta Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 323, 324 and 328 r/w 34 of IPC, now pending as C.C.No.120/2018 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Pathanamthitta. The de facto complainant and the other persons injured in the incident, are arrayed as respondents 1 to 4. Affidavits have been filed by the said respondents stating that the dispute, which was the reason for the incident and registration of the crime, has been resolved amicably and they have no subsisting grievance against the petitioners.

¶35

Crl.MC.No.1046 OF 2020(A) ..4..

¶36

Heard the learned Public Prosecutor also,

¶37

who, on instructions, submits that the petitioners have no criminal antecedents.

¶38

Having considered the gravity of the offences

¶39

alleged, nature of the injury caused and having perused the affidavit filed by respondents 1 to 4, the contents of which are submitted to be true and voluntary, I am satisfied that the dispute is settled and no public interest is involved in this matter. Eventhough there is an allegation of the petitioners having committed an offence under Section 326 of IPC, considering the young age of the petitioners and the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that some the petitioners have prospect of studying abroad which will be spoiled, if the criminal proceedings are continued, the prayer for quashing the proceedings is allowed. Moreover, in view of the

¶40

Crl.MC.No.1046 OF 2020(A) ..5..

¶41

settlement, possibility of the criminal proceedings ending in conviction is remote. As such, continuance of the proceedings will amount to an abuse of process of court and hence, in view of the legal position set out by the Honourable Supreme Court in Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab [(2008) 4 SCC 582] and Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another [(2012) 10 SCC 303], there is no impediment in granting the relief sought.

¶42

In the result, this Crl.M.C is allowed. The proceedings in C.C.No.120/2018 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Pathanamthitta is

¶43

quashed.

¶44

Sd/V.G.ARUN JUDGE

¶45

SB/02/12/2020

¶46

Crl.MC.No.1046 OF 2020(A) ..6..

¶47

APPENDIX

¶48

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶49

ANNEXURE A1

¶50

CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR AND FIS IN CRIME NO.2037/2017 OF PATHANAMTHITTA POLICE STATION DATED 16.6.2017

¶51

//true copy// P.A to Judge

Prajeesh.P.Unnithan v. Ratheesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prajeesh.P.Unnithan v. Ratheesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ramachandran Vs State of Kerala

Renjith Vs State of Kerala

Saju@ John Philip Vs Usha Joseph

Vishnu Vs Rony Alexander

Manoj Vs State of Kerala

Ahammedunni Vs Abdulla