An accused filed for quashing of proceedings under Section 363 IPC on grounds of settlement and lack of subsisting grievance. The High Court allowed the petition and quashed the FIR based on settled dispute principles explained in Madan Mohan Abbot and Gian Singh.
Crl.MC.No.3267 of 2020 is allowed; the FIR and proceedings in Crime No.163/2020 are 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
WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2020 / 1ST ASWINA, 1942
Crl.MC.No.3267 OF 2020(G)
CRIME NO.163/2020 OF Hill Palace Police Station , Ernakulam
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
JOBY THOMAS, AGED 48 YEARS S/O.P.V. THOMAS POOVATHOLIL, CHOICE PARADISE, TRIPUNITHURA, ERNAKULAM KERALA 682 301.
BY ADV. KUM.PAVAN ROSE JOHNSON
RESPONDENT/STATE AND DE FACTO COMPLAINANT:
2 JUBY RAJAN, AGED 39 YEARS W/O. RINISH, CHOICE PARADISE 7 A, TRIPUNITHURA, ERNAKULAM, KERALA 682 301.
OTHER PRESENT:
SR.PP.C.S.HRITHWIK
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23.09.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.MC.No.3267 OF 2020(G) ..2..
ORDER
Dated this the 23rd day of September 2020
Petitioner is the accused in Crime No.163/2020 registered at the Hill Palace Police Station for the offence punishable under Section 363 of IPC. The de facto complainant, at whose instance the crime was registered, is arrayed as the 2nd respondent. Annexure-A3 affidavit has been filed by 2nd respondent stating that her dispute with the petitioner, which led to registration of the crime, has been resolved amicably and she has no subsisting grievance against the petitioner.
who, on instructions, submits that the petitioner has
Crl.MC.No.3267 OF 2020(G) ..3..
no criminal antecedents.
alleged, nature of the injury caused and having perused the affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent, 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. 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.
Crl.MC.No.3267 OF 2020(G) ..4..
In the result, this Crl.M.C is allowed. Annexure-
A1 FIR and the proceedings in Crime No.163/2020 registered at the Hill Palace Police Station is quashed.
SB/23/09/2020
Sd/V.G.ARUN JUDGE
Crl.MC.No.3267 OF 2020(G) ..5..
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
ANNEXURE A1 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF FIR NO. 163/2015 AND F.I.S. OF ERNAKULAM TOWN NORTH POLICE STATION.
ANNEXURE A2 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 04/03/2020.
ANNEXURE A3 AFFIDAVIT OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
// true copy //
P.A to Judge
2 issues framed by the court
Whether proceedings bear fruits of abetment under Section 363 of IPC or are fueled by the dispute between the parties.
Whether quashing is warranted in view of the settlement of the dispute and absence of subsisting grievance.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of PunjabExplained¶25
Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab [(2008) 4 SCC 582] · Who else cites this
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and anotherExplained¶25
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another [(2012) 10 SCC 303] · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Joby Thomas
State of Kerala
Juby Rajan
V.G. Arun
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
