The High Court quashed criminal proceedings in which the petitioner was accused of IPC offences (341, 294(b), 323). The court granted the petition based on a settlement affidavit by the complainant, finding no public interest involved and invoking Supreme Court precedents on abuse of process.
The criminal proceedings in C.C. No. 627 of 2019 were 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
THURSDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 4TH CHAITHRA, 1943
Crl.MC.No.1000 OF 2021(D)
AGAINST THE ORDER IN CC 627/2019 OF SPECIAL COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS FOR TRIAL OF CASES U/S.138 NI ACT(JMFC XI)
CRIME NO.579/2019 OF Vanchiyoor Police Station , Thiruvananthapuram
PETITIONER:
KRISHNA KUMAR AGED 30 YEARS S/O.RAJAN, RESIDING AT SHYAM KRISHNA VEEDU, NEAR NEDUMAN DEVI TEMPLE, VATTAPPARA VILLAGE, KAZHUNAD WARD, NEDUMAN DESOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DIST.
BY ADV. SRI.S.JUSTUS
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE STATE OF KERALA REP.BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM PIN 682 031.
2 PRATHEEP KUMAR S. AGED 49, S/O.SUKUMARAN NAIR, T.C.93/1232, CRA - 706(A), CHAYAKUDI ROAD, PETTAH WARD, VANCHIYOOR VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DIST., PIN 695 024.
R2 BY ADV. N.J.ASHWIN
PP T.R.RENJITH
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25.03.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.MC.No.1000 OF 2021(D)
2
ORDER
Dated this the 25th day of March 2021
Petitioner is the accused in Crime No. 579 of 2019 registered at
the Vanchiyoor Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 341, 294(b) and 323 of IPC, now pending as C.C.No. 627 of 2019 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-XI, Thiruvananthapuram. The de facto complainant, at whose instance the crime was registered is arrayed as the second respondent. Annexure A2 affidavit has been filed by the second 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.
Crl.MC.No.1000 OF 2021(D)
3
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 C.C.No.627 of 2019 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-XI, Thiruvananthapuram is quashed.
Sd/-
V.G.ARUN
JUDGE
AJ
Crl.MC.No.1000 OF 2021(D)
4
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
ANNEXURE A1 FINAL REPORT IN C.C.NO.627/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-XI, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
ANNEXURE A2 AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE DEFACTO COMPLAINANT DATED 21.1.2021
2 issues framed by the court
Whether criminal proceedings should be quashed in view of the settlement of the underlying dispute.
Whether the nature of the offence and injury caused precludes quashing under the approach laid down by the Supreme Court.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of PunjabExplained¶28
Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab [(2008) 4 SCC 582] · Who else cites this
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and anotherExplained¶28
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another [(2012) 10 SCC 303] · Who else cites this
KRISHNA KUMAR
THE STATE
PRATHEEP KUMAR
V.G.ARUN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
