Allowed

Thomaskutty v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC22 Dec 2020Crl.MC/5723/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed the Criminal Miscellaneous petition and quashed the proceedings in CC No.529/2019. The court relied on the affidavit of the de facto complainant stating that the underlying dispute was amicably settled and no individual grievance remained, finding no public interest involved despite the alleged offences.

What did the court decide?

The proceedings in C.C.No.529/2019 on the files of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Thodupuzha are quashed.

Thomaskutty 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 22ND DAY OF DECEMBER 2020 / 1ST POUSHA, 1942

¶5

Crl.MC.No.5723 OF 2020(E)

¶6

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN CC 529/2019 OF CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE ,THODUPUZHA

¶7

CRIME NO.412/2019 OF MUTTOM POLICE STATION, IDUKKI , Idukki

¶8

PETITIONER/ACCUSED 1 TO 8:

¶9

1 THOMASKUTTY

¶10

AGED 19 YEARS S/O JOMON,

¶11

VALAKAMATTAM HOUSE, AYYAPANCOVIL P O, KATTAPANA, IDUKKI, PIN-685507.

¶12

2 SAJO JOHN

¶13

AGED 19 YEARS S/O JOHN JACOB,

¶14

OOROTH HOUSE, MANAKKADAVU, THENGODE P O, ERNAKULAM, PIN -682030.

¶15

3 ALTHAF T

¶16

AGED 21 YEARS S/O BASHEER T M, THARAMEL HOUSE, VANNAPURAM P O, IDUKKI, PIN-685607.

¶17

4 TONY

¶18

AGED 21 YEARS S/O ABRAHAM, KADAPLAMATTATHIL HOUSE, RAJAKUMARY (S) P O NADUMATTOM, IDUKKI, PIN-685619.

¶19

5 ABIN SUNNY AGED 21 YEARS KADAPLAMATTATHIL HOUSE, RAJAKUMARY (S) P O NADUMATTOM, IDUKKI, PIN-685619.

¶20

6 STEEVAN JOY

¶21

AGED 20 YEARS S/O JOY THOMAS,

¶22

THIKKOMBEL HOUSE, KOTTAR, KARUNAPURAM P O, IDUKKI, PIN-685552.

¶23

7 AMALDEV SAJI AGED 24 YEARS

¶24

Crl.MC.No.5723 OF 2020(E) ..2..

¶25

S/O M T SAJI, MULAMTHANATH HOUSE, VAZHAKULAM P O,MANGALLOOR, PIN-686670.

¶26

8 ARJUN S AGED 19 YEARS S/O SUDHAN, PEEKKATTIL HOUSE, PERUMPALLY, VALIYAZHEEKKAL P O, KAYAMKULAM, ALAPPUZHA , PIN-690535.

¶27

BY ADV. SRI.JIMMY GEORGE

¶28

RESPONDENT/STATE AND DE FACTO COMPLAINANT:

¶29

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,COCHIN-682031.

¶30

2 ABHINAND

¶31

AGED 19 YEARS S/O SUNDARESAN, REVATHY, THAZHAMEL, ANCHAL, KOLLAM, PIN-691306.

¶32

R2 BY ADV. PEARL K.DAVIS

¶33

OTHER PRESENT:

¶34

SR.PP.C.S.HRITHWIK

¶35

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22.12.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶36

Crl.MC.No.5723 OF 2020(E) ..3..

¶37

ORDER

¶38

Dated this the 22nd day of December 2020

¶39

Petitioners are the accused in Crime No.412/2019 registered at the Muttam Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 294(b), 341, 323, 324 r/w 149 of IPC, now pending as C.C.No.529/2019 on the files of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Thodupuzha. The de facto complainant, at whose instance the crime was registered, is arrayed as the 2^nd respondent. Annexure-C affidavit has been filed by the 2^nd respondent stating that the dispute, which was the reason for the incident and registration of the crime, has been resolved amicably and he has no subsisting grievance against the petitioners.

¶40

Crl.MC.No.5723 OF 2020(E) ..4..

¶41

Heard the learned Public Prosecutor also, who,

¶42

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

¶43

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 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

¶44

Crl.MC.No.5723 OF 2020(E) ..5..

¶45

impediment in granting the relief sought.

¶46

In the result, this Crl.M.C is allowed. The proceedings in C.C.No.529/2019 on the files of the

¶47

Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Thodupuzha is quashed.

¶48

SB/22/12/2020

¶49

Sd/V.G.ARUN JUDGE

¶50

Crl.MC.No.5723 OF 2020(E) ..6..

¶51

APPENDIX

¶52

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶53

ANNEXURE-A CERTIFIED COPY OF FIR IN CRIME NO.412/19 REGISTERED BY MUTTOM POLICE STATION, THODUPUZHA.

¶54

ANNEXURE-B CERTIFIED COPY OF FINAL REPORT. ANNEXURE-C COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT OF 2ND RESPONDENT/DE FACTO COMPLAINANT DATED 29.11.20 EVIDENCING SETTLEMENT.

¶55

//true copy// P.A to Judge

Thomaskutty v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Thomaskutty 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

Surendran v. Vs the State of Kerala

Chacko John Vs the State of Kerala

Yahim Varghese Vs the State of Kerala

Josemon Vs State of Kerala

K.O.Itoop Vs Unnikrishnan

Lijo K.Joy, Vs State of Kerala