Held that because the dispute leading to the criminal cases was settled amicably and no public interest remained, continuation of proceedings would be an abuse of court process; FIR and related proceedings were quashed.
FIR and all proceedings in Crime No.1680/2020 of Perumbavoor Police Station 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
FRIDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2020 / 29TH KARTHIKA, 1942
Crl.MC.No.4782 OF 2020(G)
CRIME NO.1680/2020 OF Perumbavoor Police Station, Ernakulam
PETITIONER/S:
ABBAS
AGED 44 YEARS S/O ABDULLA, PARAPPURATH PUTHENPURAYIL HOUSE, UTTIMATTAM, POOMALA, WEST VENGOLA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-683556.
BY ADVS. SRI.K.S.ARUN KUMAR SRI.JUSTINE JACOB SRI.C.N.MOHANAN (CHAPPURAIL) SMT.BINDU MOHAN SMT.AMRUTHA K P
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN-682031. 2 GEETHU SUJITH AGED 29 YEARS W/O SUJITH POOKKOOLIPARAMBU HOUSE, POOMALA, WEST VENGOLA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-PIN-683566 3 DEVA VRINDHA P.S. AGED 6 YEARS D/O SUJITH, REPRESENTED BY HER MOTHER AND GUARDIAN GEETHU SUJITH, POOKKOOLIPARAMBU HOUSE, POOMALA, WEST VENGOLA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-683556. 4 SUJITH P.I. AGED 31 YEARS S/O ITTIYATHI, POOKKOOLIPARAMBU HOUSE, POOMALA, WEST VENGOLA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-683556. R2-4 BY ADV. SMT.AMRUTHA P S
OTHER PRESENT:
PP SRI AMJAD ALI
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20.11.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.MC.No.4782 OF 2020(G)
2
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 20th day of November 2020
Petitioner is the accused in Crime No.1680/2020 registered at the Perumbavoor Police Station, Ernakulam District for offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 294(b), 506 of IPC and 3(1), 3(2), 9 Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989. The de facto complainant, at whose instance the crime was registered, and the other injured persons, are arrayed as respondent Nos. 2 to 4. Annexures II to IV affidavits have been filed by the 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.
3
Crl.MC.No.4782 OF 2020(G)
filed by the respondent Nos.2 to 4, 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 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.
In the result, this Crl.M.C is allowed. Annexure-I, FIR and all proceedings in Crime No.1680/2020 of Perumbavoor Police Station, Ernakulam is quashed.
Sd/-
V.G.ARUN JUDGE
sab
Crl.MC.No.4782 OF 2020(G)
4
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
ANNEXURE 1 A TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.1680/2020 OF PERUMBAVOOR POLICE STATION. ANNEXURE-II A TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT. ANNEXURE-III A TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. ANNEXURE-IV A TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.
1 issue framed by the court
Whether FIR under Sections 341, 323, 294(b), 506 IPC and SC/ST Act should be quashed in light of settlement and absence of public interest.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of PunjabApplied¶24
Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab [(2008) 4 SCC 582] · Who else cites this
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and anotherApplied¶24
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another [(2012) 10 SCC 303] · Who else cites this
Abbas
State of Kerala
Geethu Sujith
Deva Vrinda P.S.
Sujith P.I.
V.G. Arun
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
V.G. Arun
Parties & counsel
