This criminal miscellaneous case allowed a petition to quash criminal proceedings accused against three respondents as they were law students with respected complaints.
Cr.M.C. No.1673 of 2020 allowed. Proceedings in C.C. No.688 of 2019 in Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Kozhikode, 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 V.G.ARUN
THURSDAY, THE 01ST DAY OF OCTOBER 2020 / 9TH ASWINA, 1942
Crl.MC.No.1673 OF 2020(H)
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC 688/2019 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -I,KOZHIKODE
CRIME NO.218/2019 OF Chevayur Police Station , Kozhikode
PETITIONER/S:
S/O RAJENDRA BABU, SHANTHI HOUSE, CHERUVANNUR, KOLATHARA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN-673 655
Crl.M.C.No. 1673 of 2020
2
317.
7 ARUN SREERAJ, AGED 22 YEARS S/O RAJU DIVAKARAN, SREERAGAM HOUSE, MAINAGAPPALLY P.O.KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN-690 519.
BY ADV. SRI.KRISHNADAS P. NAIR
RESPONDENT/S:
3 ABHIJITH BABU AGED 21 YEARS S/O BABU, SOUPARNIKA, NAKSHATHRA NAGAR, PINIVUSHALA, CHANRANAGAR P.O.PALAKKAD, PIN-678 007.
R3 BY ADV. M.A.VINOD
OTHER PRESENT:
SR.PP.C.S.HRITHWIK
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01.10.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:
Crl.M.C.No. 1673 of 2020
3
ORDER
Dated this the 01st day of October , 2020
Petitioners are the accused in Crime No.218 of 2019 registered at the Chevayoor Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147,
323, 324 and 149 of IPC, now pending as C.C.No.688 of 2019 on the files of the Judicial
First Class Magistrate Court-I, Kozhikode. The de facto complainant, at whose instance the crime was registered, is arrayed as the third respondent. Annexure C affidavit has been filed by the third
respondent stating that the dispute which led to registration of the crime, has been settled amicably and he has no subsisting grievance in the matter.
2. Heard the learned Public Prosecutor also, who, on instructions, submits that the petitioners have no criminal antecedents.
4
Crl.M.C.No. 1673 of 2020
3. Having considered the gravity of the
offences alleged, nature of the injury caused and having perused the affidavit filed by the third respondent, the contents of which are submitted to be true and voluntary, I am satisfied that the matter has been amicably settled and that no public interest is involved in this matter. The fact that the petitioners and the third respondent are law students is also taken into consideration.
Moreover, in view of the settlement arrived at between the parties, there is no possibility of
the criminal proceedings ending in conviction. 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
5
Crl.M.C.No. 1673 of 2020
is no impediment in granting the relief.
In the result, this Crl.M.C is allowed. The proceedings in C.C.No.688 of 2019 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I,
Kozhikode, is quashed.
Sd/-
V.G.ARUN JUDGE
Scl/29.09.2020
Crl.M.C.No. 1673 of 2020
6
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
ANNEXURE A THE TRUE COPY OF THE FIR DATED 23.3.2019 IN CRIME NO 218/2019 OF CHEVAYOOR POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT
ANNEXURE B THE TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CC NO 688/2019 OF JFCM COURT-1, KOZHIKODE IN CRIME NO 218/2019 OF CHEVAYOOR POLICE STATION
ANNEXURE C THE TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SIGNED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT/DE-FACTO COMPLAINANT ON 6.2.2020
2 issues framed by the court
Whether criminal proceedings can be quashed when the underlying dispute has been amicably settled.
Whether continuance of criminal proceedings after settlement constitutes an abuse of process of court.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of PunjabRelied on¶46
Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab [(2008) 4 SCC 582] · Who else cites this
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and anotherRelied on¶46
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another [(2012) 10 SCC 303] · Who else cites this
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Vaisakh Jagadish and others
State of Kerala
Abhijith Babu
V.G.ARUN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
