Allowed

Rajith v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC27 Oct 2020Crl.MC/4310/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal miscellaneous petition seeking quashing of criminal proceedings arising out of an altercation was allowed. The bench held the dispute remained settled between the parties and no public interest was involved, rendering continuation of trials as an abuse of court process based on settled Supreme Court precedents relating to settlement leading to quashing.

What did the court decide?

This Crl.M.C allowed. The proceedings in C.C.No.91/2019 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Neyyattinakara are quashed.

Rajith 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 27TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2020 / 5TH KARTHIKA, 1942

¶5

Crl.MC.No.4310 OF 2020(G)

¶6

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN CC 91/2019 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -II,NEYYATTINKARA

¶7

CRIME NO.1680/2018 OF Parassala Police Station , Thiruvananthapuram

¶8

PETITIONER/ACCUSED 1 TO 4:

¶9

1 RAJITH AGED 37 YEARS S/O.RAJASEKHARAN NAIR, KOTTARATHIL VEED, ATHIMOOD, KOCHOTTUKONAM, AARAYUR DESHAM, CHENKAL VILLAGE, NEYYATTINKARA TALUK, CHENKAL P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 132.

¶10

2 VIPIN V.R.NAIR AGED 31 YEARS S/O.VIKRAMAN NAIR, VIPIN NIVAS, KOCHOTTUKONA, AARAYUR DESHAM, CHENKAL VILLAGE, NEYYATTINKARA TALUK, CHENKAL P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 132.

¶11

3 AKHIL DEV AGED 24 YEARS S/O.HARIKUMAR, HARIKUMAARAALAYAM, UCHAKKADA, KAROD DESHAM, KARODE VILLAGE, NEYYATTINKARA TALUK, PLAMOOTUKADA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 122.

¶12

4 ABHISHEK CHANDRAN @ UNNIT AGED 28 YEARS KALA NILAYAM, KOCHOTTUKONAM, AARAYAR DESHAM, CHENKAL VILLAGE, NEYYATTINKARA TALUK, CHENKAL P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 132.

¶13

BY ADV. SRI.T.U.SUJITH KUMAR

¶14

RESPONDENT/STATE AND DE FACTO COMPLAINANT:

¶15

1 STATE OF KERALA REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 682 031.

¶16

2 ARJUN

¶17

S/O.RAJASEKHARAN NAIR, AGED 26 YEARS, KUZHIKKARA

¶18

Crl.MC.No.4310 OF 2020(G)

¶19

VILAKATH HOUSE, KODANKARA, MELAMATTOM DESHAM, CHENKAL VILLAGE, NEYYATTINKARA TLAUK, CHENKAL P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 132.

¶20

3 NANDU AGED 27, S/O.SASI, PUTHAN VEEDU, POOVANNAMBILAKAM, MARYAPURAM, AARAYUR DESHAM, CHENKAL VILLAGE, NEYYATTINKARA TALUK, CHENKAL P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 132.

¶21

R2-3 BY ADV. K.V.WINSTON

¶22

OTHER PRESENT:

¶23

SR.PP.AMJAD ALI

¶24

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27.10.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶25

Crl.MC.No.4310 OF 2020(G)

¶26

ORDER

¶27

Dated this the 27th day of October 2020

¶28

Petitioners are the accused in Crime No.1680/2018 registered at the Parasala Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 323, 324 and 341 of IPC, now pending as C.C.No.91/2019 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Neyyattinakara. The de facto complainant and the other person injured are arrayed as respondents 2 and 3. Annexures-A2 and A3 affidavits have been filed by the said respondents stating that the dispute, which was the reason for the incident and registration of the crime, has been resolved amicably and they have no subsisting grievance against the petitioners.

¶29

Crl.MC.No.4310 OF 2020(G)

¶30

Heard the learned Public Prosecutor also,

¶31

who, on instructions, submits that the petitioners have no criminal antecedents.

¶32

Having considered the gravity of the offences alleged, nature of the injury caused and having perused the affidavit filed by respondents 2 and 3, 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

¶33

Crl.MC.No.4310 OF 2020(G)

¶34

another [(2012) 10 SCC 303], there is no impediment in granting the relief sought.

¶35

In the result, this Crl.M.C is allowed. The proceedings in C.C.No.91/2019 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Neyyattinakara is quashed.

¶36

SB/27/10/2020

¶37

Sd/V.G.ARUN JUDGE

¶38

Crl.MC.No.4310 OF 2020(G)

¶39

APPENDIX

¶40

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶41

ANNEXURE A1 A CERTIFIED COPY OF FINAL REPORT IN C.C.NO.91/2019 OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-II, NEYYATTINKARA.

¶42

ANNEXURE A2 THE AFFIDAVIT EXECUTED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT. ANNEXURE A3 THE AFFIDAVIT EXECUTED BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT.

¶43

//true copy// P.A to Judge

Rajith v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajith 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

Muraleekumar.S Vs Rajan Menon

Muraleekumar.S Vs Rajan Menon

Muraleekumar.S Vs Rajan Menon

Silpa v.Kumar Ifs, Vs State of Kerala

Abdul Joushan Vs the State of Kerala

Abdul Noufal Vs State of Kerala