Allowed

Sarath M.S. v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC6 Oct 2020Crl.MC/2923/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed quashing of criminal proceedings against petitioners accused ofIPC offences. The Court found the dispute settled by the de facto complainant, no public interest involved, and continuance of proceedings would be an abuse of process under Supreme Court precedents.

What did the court decide?

The criminal proceedings in C.C.No.716 of 2017 on the file of JFCM-I, Thodupuzha are quashed.

Sarath M.S. 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 06TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2020 / 14TH ASWINA, 1942

¶5

Crl.MC.No.2923 OF 2020(E)

¶6

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN CC 716/2017 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -I(FOREST OFFENCES),TPA

¶7

CRIME NO.114/2017 OF Kanjar Police Station , Idukki

¶8

PETITIONERS:

¶9

1 SARATH M.S. AGED 26 YEARS S/O.M.A.SASI, MANIMALAYIL HOUSE, ELAPPALLY.P.O, PIN685589

¶10

2 ABIN RAJENDRAN

¶11

AGED 26 YEARS S/O.RAJENDRAN, KURIYALIL HOUSE, ARAKULAM.P.O, PIN685591

¶12

3 SUJITH M AGED 26 YEARS

¶13

S/O.MANI, SUJITH NIVAS, PALLIYAM, THILLENKERI.P.O, KANNUR, PIN-670702

¶14

4 ATHAX MATHEW AGED 23 YEARS S/O.MATHEW.P.M, PUTHENPURAYIL VEEDU, CHALLAVAYAL, MUTTOM.P.O, PIN-685587

¶15

5 JAICKS BENNY AGED 24 YEARS S/O.BENNY, ILLICKAL HOUSE, KOLANI.P.O, PIN-685608

¶16

6 GEO JOY AGED 24 YEARS S/O.JOY.P.P, PULICKATHOTTIYIL HOUSE, PANNOOR.P.O, KARIMANNOOR, THODUPUZHA, PIN-685581

¶17

7 AMAL BABU AGED 21 YEARS S/O.BABU JOSEPH, EDAKKARA HOUSE, MOOLAMATTOM.P.O, PIN CODE-685589

¶18

8 ABIJITH MURALI AGED 22 YEARS

¶19

Crmc 2923/2020

¶20

¶21

S/O.MURALI V.S., VADAKKEPARAMBIL HOUSE, MOOLAMATTOM.P.O, PIN CODE-685589

¶22

9 JIBIN BABY AGED 23 YEARS S/O.K U BABY, KOLLALAPARAYIL HOUSE, ARAKULAM.P.O, PIN CODE-685588

¶23

BY ADVS. SRI.SAM ISAAC POTHIYIL SHRI.VISHNU DAS SRI. SRUTHI DAS

¶24

RESPONDENTS:

¶25

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN-682018

¶26

2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER, KANJAR POLICE STATION, KANJAR, PIN 685590, IDUKKI DISTRICT.

¶27

3 OMANA MATHEW AGED 56 YEARS W/O.MATHEW JOSEPH, KALLIKATTU HOUSE, ARAKULAM.P.O, ARAKULAM VILLAGE, ARAKULAM PANCHAYATH, IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN-685588

¶28

*4 LISSY VARGHESE, AGED 50 YEARS W/O.EAPPACHAN, MANIMALA HOUSE, ARAKULAM VILLAGE, ARAKULAM P.O., ARAKULAM PANCHAYATH, PIN-685588. (ADDITIONAL R4 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 06.10.2020 IN CRL.M.A.NO.2 OF 2020).

¶29

R3-4 BY ADV. SHRI.JOMON P MOHAN

¶30

*** Additional 4**^th respondent impleaded as per order dted 06.10.2020 in I.A.No.2 of 2020

¶31

SR.PP.C.S.HRITHWIK

¶32

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06.10.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

Crmc 2923/2020

V.G.ARUN, J.

=========================== Crl.M.C.No.2923 of 2020

¶37

=========================== Dated this the 6^th day of October, 2020

¶38

ORDER

¶39

Petitioners are the accused in Crime No.114 of 2017 registered at the Kanjar Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 149, 447, 294(b), 506 and 427 of IPC now pending as C.C.No.716 of 2017 on the file of JFCM-I, Thodupuzha. The de facto complainant, at whose instance the crime was registered, is the 3^rd respondent. Annexure A3 affidavit has been filed by the 3^rd respondent stating that the dispute is resolved and that she has no subsisting grievance against the petitioners.

¶40

Heard the learned Public Prosecutor also, who, on instructions, submits that the petitioners have no criminal antecedents.

¶41

Having considered the gravity of the 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

¶42

Crmc 2923/2020

¶43

¶44

dispute is settled and that no public interest is involved in this matter. Moreover, in view of the 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.

¶45

In the result, this Crl.M.C is allowed. The proceedings in C.C.No.716 of 2017 on the file of JFCM-I, Thodupuzha is quashed.

sd/-

V.G.ARUN

JUDGE

lgk

Crmc 2923/2020

APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶54

ANNEXURE A1 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.114/2017 OF KANJAR POLICE STATION, KANJAR PENDING AS CC NO.716/2017 ON THE FILES OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-I, THODUPUZHA.

¶55

ANNEXURE A2 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO.114/2017 OF KANJAR POLICE STATION PENDING ON THE FILES OF JUDICIAL FIRST MAGISTRATE COURT-I, THODUPUZHA AS CC NO.716/2017

¶56

ANNEXURE A3 AFFIDAVIT SWORN TO BY THE DEFACTO COMPLAINANT

Sarath M.S. v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sarath M.S. 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sudheesh .a Vs State of Kerala

Fakrudeen Ali Ahamed Vs the State of Kerala

Abhimanyu K.K Vs State of Kerala

Jeeshma.P., Vs Rajeevan.K.P.

V.Salahudheen Ayoobi, Vs the State of Kerala

V.Salahudheen Ayoob Vs the State of Kerala