The Kerala HC allowed a criminal miscellaneous petition to quash criminal proceedings. The Court found the dispute settled through an affidavit by the complainant and noted the parties were students with no antecedents, ruling that continuing proceedings would be an abuse of process.
The proceedings in C.C.No.1961 of 2019 were 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
MONDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2020 / 25TH KARTHIKA, 1942
Crl.MC.No.3566 OF 2020(E)
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN CC 1961/2019 OF JMFC, KAKKANAD (TEMPORARY) CRIME NO.51/2019 OF Thrikkakara Police Station , Ernakulam
PETITIONERS:
1 SANOOP
AGED 24 YEARS S/O.YOUSAF, MADAPILLY HOUSE, PADAMUGAL, KAMBIVELIKKAKAM, KAKKANAD P.O., ERNAKULAM-682 030.
2 SURAJ, AGED 22 YEARS
S/O.MURUKAN, CHOWKKAPARAMBIL HOUSE, PADAMUGAL, KAMBIVELIKKAKAM, KAKKANAD P.O., ERNAKULAM-682 030.
3 KIRAN LAL, AGED 20 YEARS
S/O.LAL.A.C., NIKARTHIL HOUSE, PADAMUGAL, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM-682 030.
4 SHABAS NAZER, AGED 18 YEARS S/O.NAZER.K.M., FEMITH MANL, VENNALA P.O., ERNAKULAM682 028.
S/O.BASHEER, PANATTAYIL HOUSE, PADAMUGAL, KAMBIVELIKKAKAM, KAKKANAD P.O., ERNAKULAM-682 030.
6 AJSAL.P.A., AGED 19 YEARS S/O.ABDUL SALAM.P.M., PALLICHANKUDI HOUSE, ATHANI, KUSUMAGIRI, ERNAKULAM-682 030.
7 ANANDHU JAIN, AGED 22 YEARS S/O.JAIN.P.R., PADIKKAL HOUSE, PERUMBALAM P.O., CHERTHALA, ALAPUZHA P.O., PIN-688 570.
BY ADVS.
SMT.KHADEEJA RISHBATH KALLINGAL
Crmc 3566/2020
2
SHRI.ASHISH GOPAL K G SMT.SREEJA K.S. SMT.P.LINIMOL
RESPONDENTS:
R3 BY ADV. ANJU J.V.
PP RAMESH CHAND
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16.11.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crmc 3566/2020
3
V.G.ARUN, J.
=========================== Crl.M.C.No.3566 of 2020
===========================
Dated this the 16th day of November, 2020
ORDER
Petitioners are the accused in Crime No.51 of 2019 registered at the Thrikkakara Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 324 and 34 of IPC, now pending as C.C.No.1961 of 2019 on the file of Judicial I Class Magistrate Court, Kakkanad(temporary). The de facto complainants, at whose instance the crime was registered is the 3rd respondent. Annexure III affidavit has been filed by the 3rd respondent stating that the dispute is resolved and that he has no subsisting grievance against the petitioners.
Crmc 3566/2020
4
defacto complainant were students at the time when the incident occurred, I am satisfied that the 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.
Sd/-
V.G.ARUN JUDGE
lgk
Crmc 3566/2020
5
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
ANNEXURE I CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIRST INFORMATION REPORT REGISTERED AS CRIME NO.51/2019 REGISTERED BY THE THRIKKAKARA POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT ALONG WITH THE CERTIFIED COPIES OF FIS. ANNEXURE II CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE POLICE SUB INSPECTOR OF THRIKKAKARA POLICE STATION AS CC 1961 OF 2019 BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, KAKKANAD. ANNEXURE III THE AFFIDAVIT SIGNED BY THE DEFACTO COMPLAINANT.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether criminal proceedings for offenses under IPC Section 341, 323, 324, and 34 should be quashed due to settlement.
Whether continuation of proceedings would amount to an abuse of process of court given the resolution of the dispute.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of PunjabRelied on¶40
Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab [(2008) 4 SCC 582] · Who else cites this
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and anotherRelied on¶40
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another [(2012) 10 SCC 303] · Who else cites this
Sanoop and Others
State of Kerala
Ebin Shaju
V.G. Arun
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
