Allowed

Nithin George, v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC16 Oct 2020Crl.MC/3726/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a criminal miscellaneous petition to quash criminal proceedings initiated under specific IPC sections. The Court observed that the dispute leading to the crime registration was settled amicably, no public interest was involved, and the possibility of conviction was remote.

What did the court decide?

Criminal proceedings in C.C.No.1051/2019 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Aluva are quashed.

Nithin George, 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

FRIDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2020 / 24TH ASWINA, 1942

¶5

Crl.MC.No.3726 OF 2020(E)

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC 1051/2019 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -II, ALUVA

¶7

CRIME NO.605/2019 OF ELAMAKKARA POLICE STATION , ERNAKULAM

¶8

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO.1 TO 6:

¶9

1 NITHIN GEORGE, AGED 25 YEARS

¶10

S/O GEORGE, MAKKIVEETL HOUSE, KOONAMMAVU P.O, NEAR ST.ANTONYS CHURCH, KONNAMMAVU,ERNAKULAM-683 518

¶11

2 FRANK JOHN,

¶12

AGED 25 YEARS

¶13

S/O JACOB,ITTIPATTAYIL HOUSE, THEKKUMBHAGAM, PUTHIYAKAVU, THRIPUNITHURA, ERNAKULAM-682 030

¶14

3 JITHIN FRANCIS.A.J. AGED 24 YEARS S/O JOSEPH, ADICHIYIL HOUSE, MAITHRI LANE, THYKOODAN, VYTTILA.P.O., ERNAKULAM-682 019

¶15

4 MIDHUN JOHNY AGED 24 YEARS

¶16

S/O JOHNY, KANJANAPPILLY HOUSE, CANAL ROAD, THYKOODAM , VYTTILA P.O., ERNAKULAM-682 019

¶17

5 RITHIN ROY

¶18

AGED 26 YEARS

¶19

S/O ROY, KOODARAPILLY HOUSE, VYTTILA THYKOODAM, ERNAKULAM-682 019

¶20

6 ANTONY

¶21

AGED 26 YEARS

¶22

S/O. BENNY, MANGLAVPARAMBIL HOUSE, THYKOODAM, VYTTILA, ERNAKULAM-682 019

¶23

BY ADV. SRI.NIKHIL K GOPINATH

¶24

RESPONDENTS/STATE & DEFACTO COMPLAINANTS:

¶25

1 STATE OF KERALA

¶26

Crl.MC.No.3726/2020(E)

¶27

¶28

REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031

¶29

2 ANOOP

¶30

AGED 34 YEARS S/O. PURUSHOTHAMAN, MARVALITHUNDI VEEDU, THURUTHIL UNNIKRISHNAN ROAD, VENNALA P.O., EDAPPALLY SOUTH VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM-682 028

¶31

3 SATHEESH AGED 34 YEARS S/O. SHANMUGAN, PUTHIYATTITHARA VEEDU, HIGH SCHOOL JUNCTION, VENNALA P.O., EDAPPALLY SOUTH VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM-682 028

¶32

4 SHARATH AGED 30 YEARS S/O.VENU, MADAPPILLY VEEDU, THURUTHI UNNIKRISHNAN ROAD, VENNALA P.O., EDAPPALLY SOUTH VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM-682 028

¶33

R2-4 BY ADV. GEORGE RENOY

¶34

SENIOR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, AMJAD ALI

¶35

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16.10.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶36

Crl.MC.No.3726/2020(E)

¶37

¶38

O R D E R

¶39

Dated this the 16th day of October 2020

¶40

Petitioners are the accused in Crime No.605/2019 registered at the Elamakkara Police Station, registered for offences punishable under Sections 324, 341, 323, 427 r/w 34 of IPC, now pending as C.C.No. 1051/2019 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Aluva. The de facto complainant, at whose instance the crime was registered and the other persons injured, are arrayed as respondents 2 to 4. Annexures A3 to A5 affidavits have been filed by respondents 2 to 4 stating that the dispute, which led to registration of the crime, has been settled amicably and that they have no subsisting grievance in the matter.

¶41

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

¶42

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

¶43

Crl.MC.No.3726/2020(E)

¶44

¶45

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.

¶46

In the result, this Crl.M.C is allowed. The proceedings in C.C.No.1051/2019 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Aluva is quashed.

¶47

Sd/V.G.ARUN JUDGE

¶48

¶49

Crl.MC.No.3726/2020(E)

¶50

¶51

APPENDIX

¶52

PETITIONERS EXHIBITS:

¶53

ANNEXURE-A1	TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.605/2019 OF ELAMAKKARA POLICE STATION
ANNEXURE-A2	TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CC NO.1051 OF 2019 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE HON'BLE JUDICIAL FIST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-II ALUVA
ANNEXURE-A3	AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 24.07.2020
ANNEXURE-A4	AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 24.07.2020
ANNEXURE-A5	AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 24.07.2020
RESPONDENTS	EXHIBITS: NIL

¶54

//TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE

Nithin George, v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nithin George, 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

Joseph @ Sabu Joseph Vs State of Kerala

Don Davidson Daniel, Vs State of Kerala

Moideenkutty Vs State of Kerala

Muraleekumar.S Vs Rajan Menon

Muraleekumar.S Vs Rajan Menon

Muraleekumar.S Vs Rajan Menon