The High Court of Kerala allowed the criminal miscellaneous petition and quashed criminal proceedings against the petitioner. The court found the underlying dispute settled, co-accused acquitted, and continuance of trial as an abuse of process following Supreme Court precedents.
Criminal proceeding S.C.No.704 of 2019 in Vadakara Assistant Sessions Court is 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
WEDNESDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2020 / 27TH KARTHIKA, 1942
Crl.MC.No.625 OF 2020(G)
PROCEEDINGS IN S.C.NO.704/2019 ON THE FILES OF ASSISTANT SESSION COURT, VADAKARA
CRIME NO.751/2016 OF VADAKARA POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
KAREEM
AGED 42 YEARS S/O.SOOPY, CHAPPOKIL HOUSE, P.O.KOTTAPALLY,VADAKARA, KOZHIKODE - 673 541.
BY ADVS. SRI.SRINATH GIRISH SRI.P.JERIL BABU
RESPONDENTS/STATE AND DE FACTO COMPLAINANT:
2 SAJEEVAN.M
AGED 33 YEARS S/O. BALAN, MACHIL HOUSE, VALLIATU ROAD, KOTTAPALLI P.O., VADAKARA, KOZHIKODE - 673 541.
R2 BY ADV. HALVI K.S
R1 BY SRI.C.S.HRITHWIK, SR. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18.11.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.MC.No.625 OF 2020(G)
2
V.G.ARUN, J.
Crl.M.C.No.625 of 2020
Dated this the 18th day of November, 2020
O R D E R
Petitioner is the accused in Crime No.751 of 2016 registered at the Vadakara Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 323, 324, 308 and 435 read with Section 149 of IPC, now pending as S.C.No.704 of 2019 on the files of the Assistant Sessions Court, Vadakara. The de facto complainant, at whose instance the crime was registered, is arrayed as the 2 nd respondent. Annexure - A5 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. It is submitted that based on the settlement, the co-accused were acquitted and the counter cases quashed.
2. Heard the learned Public Prosecutor also, who, on instructions, submits that the petitioner has no criminal antecedents.
3. Having considered the gravity of the offences alleged, nature of the injury caused and having perused the affidavit filed
Crl.MC.No.625 OF 2020(G)
3
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 that no public interest is involved in this matter. Moreover, in view of the settlement and the acquittal of the co-accused, 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. The proceedings in S.C.No.704 of 2019 on the files of the Assistant Sessions Court, Vadakara is quashed.
Sd/-
V.G.ARUN, JUDGE
DK
Crl.MC.No.625 OF 2020(G)
4
APPENDIX OF Crl.MC 625/2020
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
ANNEXURE-A1 TRUE COPY OF THE FIRST INFORMATION REPORT NO.751/2016 DATED 21.05.2016 OF BADAGARA POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE RURAL
ANNEXURE-A2 TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT ANNEXURE-A3 TRUE COPY OF MEMORANDUM OF EVIDENCE ANNEXURE-A4 TRUE COPY OF THE WOUND CERTIFICATE OF 2ND RESPONDENT ANNEXURE-A5 AFFIDAVIT DATED 20.12.2019 SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL
1 issue framed by the court
Whether quashing of criminal proceedings is permissible when the dispute has been settled amicably, co-accused have been acquitted, and no public interest is involved.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of PunjabFollowed¶27
Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab [(2008) 4 SCC 582] · Who else cites this
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and anotherFollowed¶27
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another [(2012) 10 SCC 303] · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Kareem
State of Kerala
Sajeevan.M
V.G. Arun
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
