Allowed

Sidharthan v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC15 Sept 2020Crl.MC/1693/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appealing against an order under Section 482 CrPC, the Court allowed the petition and quashed criminal proceedings for IPC offenses 294(b), 341, 324, and 326, citing settlement, lack of antecedents, and peaceful domestic relations as grounds.

What did the court decide?

Criminal proceedings filed in C.C.No. 1706/2015 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Paravur, are quashed.

Sidharthan Vs State of Kerala — Quashing and FIR | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2020 / 24TH BHADRA, 1942

¶5

Crl.MC.No.1693 OF 2020(B)

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC 1706/2015 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, PARAVUR

¶7

CRIME NO.2362/2014 OF Parippally Police Station , Kollam

¶8

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

¶9

SIDHARTHAN, AGED 58 YEARS, S/O SADANANDAN, VEMBOTTIL VEEDU, KAVADIKKONAM, KOTTAYKKERAM CHERRY, PARIPPALLY VILLAGE, KOLLAM.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.M.R.SASITH

¶11

RESPONDENTS/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:

¶12

1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN-682031.

¶13

2 THE SUB INSPECTOR, PARIPPALLY POLICE STATION, KOLLAM, PIN-691 574.

¶14

3 THANKAMANI, AGED 51 YEARS, W/O SIDHARTHAN, VEMBOTTIL VEEDU, KAVADIKKONAM, KOTTAYKKERAM CHERRY, PARIPPALLY VILLAGE, KOLLAM, PIN – 691 574.

¶15

R1-2 BY PP AMJAD ALI

¶16

R3 BY ADV. V.VINAR

¶17

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15.09.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

Crl.MC.No.1693 OF 2020

¶19

¶20

ORDER

¶21

Dated this the 15th day of September 2020

¶22

Petitioners are the accused in Crime No.2362/2014 registered at the Parippally Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 341, 324 and 326 of the I.P.C., now pending as C.C.No. 1706/2015 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, (temporary), Paravur, Kollam. The defacto complainant, at whose instance the crime was registered, is arrayed as the 3^rd respondent. Annexure A2 affidavit has been filed by the 3^rd respondent stating that the dispute, which led to registration of the crime, has been settled amicably and that she has no subsisting grievance in the matter.

¶23

Heard the learned Public Prosecutor

¶24

also, who, on instructions, submits that the petitioner has no criminal antecedents.

¶25

Crl.MC.No.1693 OF 2020

¶26

¶27

Having considered the gravity of the

¶28

offences alleged, nature of the injury caused and having perused the affidavit filed by the 3^rd respondent, the contents of which are submitted to be true and voluntary, I am satisfied that the dispute is settled and that no public interest is involved in this matter. Eventhough the offence under Section 326 of the I.P.C is alleged and the defacto complainant is stated to have suffered a frac ture, considering the fact that the parties are husband and wife and are presently stated to be leading their matrimonial life peacefully, I am inclined to accept the petition for quashing the proceedings. Moreover, in view of the settlement, possibility of the criminal proceedings ending in conviction

¶29

is remote. As such, continuance of the proceedings will amount to an abuse of process of court and hence, in view of the legal

¶30

position set out by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab [(2008) 4

¶31

Crl.MC.No.1693 OF 2020

¶32

SCC 582] and Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another [2012) 10 SCC 3031, there is no

¶33

impediment in granting the relief sought.

¶34

In the result, this Crl. M.C. is allowed. The proceedings in C.C.No. 1706/2015 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, (temporary), Paravur, Kollam, is quashed.

Sd/-

V.G.ARUN JUDGE

SSK/15/09

Crl.MC.No.1693 OF 2020

¶39

¶40

APPENDIX

¶41

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶42

ANNEXURE A1 TRUE COPY	OF THE	FINAL REPORT FILED BY
PARIPPALLY	POLICE	BEFORE THE HON'BLE
JUDICIAL (TEMPORARY	FIRST CL ) PARAVUR,	ASS MAGISTRATE COURT, KOLLAM.
ANNEXURE A2 TRUE COPY RESPONDENT	OF THE AFF .	IDAVIT FILED BY THE 3RD
RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:NIL
SSK //TRUE COPY//		PA TO JUDGE

Sidharthan v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sidharthan 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

Muhammedkutty, Vs State of Kerala

Abdul Majeed Vs State of Kerala

Viswan Vs State of Kerala

Aswin Raj.K., Vs State of Kerala

Vinod.M.J Vs State of Kerala

Somavally, Vs the State of Kerala