The High Court of Kerala quashed criminal proceedings in C.C. No. 120/2018 for offences under IPC Sections 323, 324, and 326. The order was based on the settlers submitted by the complainants, the petitioners' youth, and the remote likelihood of conviction.
The prayer for quashing the criminal proceedings in C.C. No. 120/2018 is allowed.
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 V.G.ARUN
WEDNESDAY, THE 02ND DAY OF DECEMBER 2020 / 11TH AGRAHAYANA, 1942
Crl.MC.No.1055 OF 2020(B)
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN CC 120/2018 OF CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE PATHANAMTHITTA
CRIME NO.2036/2017 OF Pathanamthitta Police Station , Pathanamthitta
PETITIONER/ACCUSED 1 TO 5:
1 VISHNU AGED 24 YEARS S/O.RAJAN, PEZHUMOOTTIL HOSUE, PUTHUKULAM, ERUM.P.O, MALAYALAPUZHA VILLAGE, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT PIN689664
S/O.RAJAN, PUTHUKULAM, ERAM.P.O, MALAYALAPUZHA VILLAGE, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT PIN-689664
3 VINEETH VASUDEV
AGED 34 YEARS S/O.VASUDEVAN, KOCHUMANAIL HOUSE, PUTHUKULAM, ERUM PO MALAYALAPUZHA VILLAGE, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT PIN689664
4 RATHEESH
AGED 37 YEARS S/O.SASIDHARAN, PERUNTHOLIL HOUSE, PUTHUKULAM ERUM PO MALAYALAPUZHA VILLAGE, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT PIN689664
5 SUNIL MV @ KUTHANI AGED 41 YEARS
S/O.VASUDEVAN, MENIPUZHATHARAI, PUTHUKULAM ERUM PO MALAYALAPUZHA VILLAGE, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT PIN689664
BY ADV. SRI.M.T.SURESHKUMAR
RESPONDENT/DE FACTO COMPLAINANT AND STATE:
1 RONY ALEXANDER AGED 28 YEARS
Crl.MC.No.1055 OF 2020(B) ..2..
S/O.ALEXANDER, RESIDING AT MELEPARAMBIL HOUSE, PUTHUKULAM, ERAM.P.O, MALAYALAPUZHA VILLAGE, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT PIN-689664
R1-2 BY ADV. N.BIJA KRISHNA
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02.12.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.MC.No.1055 OF 2020(B) ..3..
ORDER
Dated this the 2nd day of December 2020 Petitioners are the accused in Crime
No.2036/2020 registered at the Pathanamthitta Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 323, 324 and 326 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 injured person, at whose instance the crime was registered, are arrayed as respondents 1 and 2. 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.
Crl.MC.No.1055 OF 2020(B) ..4..
who, on instructions, submits that the petitioners have no criminal antecedents.
Crl.MC.No.1055 OF 2020(B) ..5..
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.
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 quashed.
Sd/V.G.ARUN JUDGE
SB/02/12/2020
Crl.MC.No.1055 OF 2020(B) ..6..
APPENDIX OF Crl.MC 1055/2020
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
ANNEXURE A1 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR AND FIS IN CRIME NO.2036/2017 OF PATHANAMTHITTA POLICE STATION DATED 29.03.2019
ANNEXURE A2 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT SUBMITTED BEFORE THE CJM, PATHANAMTHITTA IN CRIME NO.2036/2017 AS CC NO.120/2018
ANNEXURE A3 TRUE COPY OF THE FIR AND FIS IN CRIME NO.2037/2017 OF PATHANAMTHITTTA POLICE STATION , DATED 12.06.2017
//true copy// P.A to Judge
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the criminal proceedings under IPC Sections 323, 324 and 326 should be quashed given the settlement of the dispute and remote possibility of conviction.
Whether continued proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of court considering the amicable resolution and impact on petitioners.
Whether legal principles from Supreme Court precedents regarding settlement and abuse of process permit granting the relief sought.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of PunjabExplained¶36
Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab [(2008) 4 SCC 582] · Who else cites this
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and anotherExplained¶36
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another [(2012) 10 SCC 303] · Who else cites this
4 provisions across 1 enactments
VISHNU et al.
RONY ALEXANDER
PRAJEESH P UNNITHAN
STATE OF KERALA
V.G.ARUN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
