Allowed

Babu v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC17 Nov 2020Crl.MC/4501/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala, in a Criminal Misc. Case, allowed the petitioner's petition to quash criminal proceedings instituted under Sections 447, 326, and 308 of the IPC. This decision was made because the de facto complainant had settled the dispute amicably, abandoning the grievance, and the court found no public interest involved in continuing the trial.

What did the court decide?

The criminal proceedings in S.C.No.1056 of 2018 on the files of Assistant Sessions Court, Chengannur are quashed.

Babu Vs the State of Kerala — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

Crl.MC.No.4501 OF 2020(C)

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN

¶6

TUESDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2020 / 26TH KARTHIKA, 1942

¶7

Crl.MC.No.4501 OF 2020(C)

¶8

PROCEEDINGS IN S.C.NO.1056/2018 OF ASSISTANT SESSIONS COURT, CHENGANNUR

¶9

CRIME NO.2712/2017 OF MAVELIKKARA POLICE STATION

¶10

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

¶11

BABU

¶12

AGED 52 YEARS

¶13

S/O. THANKAPPAN, LAL BHAVANAM, MATTOM SOUTH MURI, KANNAMANGALAM VILLAGE, MAVELIKARA TALUK - 690 106.

¶14

BY ADVS.

¶15

SRI.RINNY STEPHEN CHAMAPARAMPIL SMT.ASHA ELIZABETH MATHEW

¶16

RESPONDENTS/STATE & DEFACTO-COMPLAINANT:

¶17

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

¶18

2 ARAVIND K ANAND AGED 24 YEARS S/O. ANANDAN, KALLUTHAZHATHU HOUSE, MATTOM SOUTH MURI, KANNAMANGALAM VILLAGE, MAVELIKARA TALUK - 690 106.

¶19

R2 BY ADV. RESMY M.S

¶20

R1 BY SRI. C.S.HRITHWIK, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶21

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17.11.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

Crl.MC.No.4501 OF 2020(C)

¶23

¶24

V.G.ARUN, J.

¶25

----------------------------------------------Crl.M.C.No.4501 of 2020

¶26

Dated this the 17^th day of November, 2020

¶27

O R D E R

¶28

Petitioner is the accused in Crime No.2712 of 2017 registered at the Mavelikkara Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 447, 326 and 308 of IPC, now pending as S.C.No.1056 of 2018 on the files of Assistant Sessions Court, Chengannur. The de facto complainant, at whose instance the crime was registered, is arrayed as the 2^nd respondent. Annexure - A2 affidavit has been filed by 2^nd respondent stating that the dispute, which led to registration of the crime, has been settled amicably and that he has no subsisting grievance in the matter.

¶29

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

¶30

Having considered the gravity of the offences alleged, nature of the injury caused and having perused the affidavit filed by the 2^nd respondent, the contents of which are submitted to be true and voluntary, I am satisfied that the dispute is settled and

¶31

Crl.MC.No.4501 OF 2020(C)

¶32

¶33

that no public interest is involved in this matter. Even though the offence under Section 326 of the IPC was alleged, on perusal of the records, I find that the act was not premeditated and further, it was the accused himself who had rushed the victim boy to the hospital immediately. Moreover, in vie w 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.

¶34

In the result, this Crl.M.C is allowed. The proceedings in S.C.No.1056 of 2018 on the files of Assistant Sessions Court, Chengannur is quashed.

Sd/-

V.G.ARUN, JUDGE

Crl.MC.No.4501 OF 2020(C)

¶39

¶40

APPENDIX

¶41

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶42

ANNEXURE A1 SEALED COPY OF THE FIR & FINAL REPORT/ CHARGE IN CRIME NO.2712/2017 OF MAVELIKARA POLICE STATION.

¶43

ANNEXURE A2 AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶44

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL

Babu v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Babu v. the 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

Sanoop Vs State of Kerala

Mini Avikkal Vs State of Kerala

Sreedharan Ambliyadan Vs State of Kerala

Rafeeq Vs State of Kerala

Abdul Hakkeem Vs State of Kerala

Sunil Vijayan P.K. Vs State of Kerala