Allowed

Lijo K.Joy, v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC22 Dec 2020Crl.MC/7965/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court quashed the First Information Report and criminal proceedings under specific IPC sections, finding that the underlying dispute was settled amicably by the respondents, no public interest was involved, and continuance of proceedings would amount to an abuse of process of court.

What did the court decide?

Crl.MC. No.7965 of 2019 is allowed; FIR and proceedings in Crime No.335/2019 are quashed.

Lijo K.Joy, 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.7965 OF 2019(E)

¶6

CRIME NO.335/2019 OF Idukki Police Station , Idukki

¶7

PETITIONER/ACCUSED NOS. 1 TO 3:

¶8

1 LIJO K.JOY, AGED 31 YEARS

¶9

S/O JOY, KARITHARAYIL HOUSE, MANIYARAMKUDY KARA, IDUKKI VILLAGE, IDUKKI DISTRICT-685 602.

¶10

2 TIJO K JOY, AGED 28 YEARS

¶11

S/O JOY, KARITHARAYIL HOUSE, MANIYARAMKUDY KARA, IDUKKI VILLAGE, IDUKKI DISTRICT-685 602.

¶12

3 DARIYAS, AGED 25 YEARS S/O POULOSE, CHERUVIL HOUSE, PATHINARAMKANDAM BHAGOM, RAJAMUDI KARA, UPPUTHODU VILLAGE, IDUKKI DISTRICT-685 604.

¶13

BY ADV. SRI.PRINCE J PANANAL RESPONDENT/STATE AND DE FACTO COMPLAINANT:

¶14

1 STATE OF KERALA

¶15

REPRESENTED BY THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, IDUKKI POLICE STATION IN IDUKKI DISTRICT, THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031.

¶16

2 ANEESH

¶17

AGED 35 YEARS S/O CHACKO, THEVARANIYIL HOUSE, VAZHATHOPPU BHAGOM, THADIYAMPADU KARA, IDUKKI VILLAGE, IDUKKI DISTRICT685 602.

¶18

3 BIJUMON JOSEPH @ BAIJU, AGED 45 YEARS S/O JOSEPH, VAZHACKAL HOUSE, BHOOMIAMKULAM MANIYARAMKUDY P.O.IDUKKI DISTRICT-685 602.

¶19

R2-3 BY ADV. P.S.SYAMKUTTAN

¶20

SR.PP.C.S.HRITHWIK

¶21

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

¶22

Crl.MC.No.7965 OF 2019(E) ..2..

¶23

ORDER

¶24

Dated this the 22nd day of December 2020 Petitioners are the accused in Crime No.335/2019 registered at the Idukki Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 323, 324 and 325 r/w 34 of IPC. 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.

¶25

Heard the learned Public Prosecutor also, who, on instructions, submits that the petitioners

¶26

Crl.MC.No.7965 OF 2019(E) ..3..

¶27

have no criminal antecedents.

¶28

Having considered the gravity of the offences alleged, nature of the injury caused and having perused the affidavits 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 another [(2012) 10 SCC 303], there is no impediment in granting the relief sought.

¶29

Crl.MC.No.7965 OF 2019(E) ..4..

¶30

In the result, this Crl.M.C is allowed. Annexure-

¶31

A1 FIR and the proceedings in No.335/2019 registered at the Idukki Police Station is quashed.

¶32

SB/22/12/2020

¶33

Sd/V.G.ARUN JUDGE

¶34

Crl.MC.No.7965 OF 2019(E) ..5..

¶35

APPENDIX

¶36

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶37

ANNEXURE A1 CERTIFIED COPY OF FIRST INFORMATION REPORT CRIME NO 335/2019 OF THE IDUKKI POLICE STATION ANNEXURE A2 ORIGINAL AFFIDAVIT DATED 30.10.2019 SWORN IN BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT ANNEXURE A3 ORIGINAL AFFIDAVIT DATED 30.10.2019 SWORN IN BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT

¶38

//true copy// P.A to Judge

Lijo K.Joy, v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lijo K.Joy, 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

Thomaskutty Vs State of Kerala