Allowed

Lavin v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC18 Mar 2021Crl.MC/1140/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Criminal Miscellaneous Case petitioned pursuant to a private settlement affidavit. The Court held that since the dispute was amicably resolved with no public interest involved, the continuance of proceedings constituted an abuse of process. Consequently, the FIR under various IPC sections was quashed.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of Annexure I FIR and all proceedings in Crime No.50 of 2021 registered at the Aloor Police Station.

Lavin Vs the State of Kerala — Quashing and FIR | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 27TH PHALGUNA, 1942

¶5

Crl.MC.No.1140 OF 2021(B)

¶6

CRIME NO.50/2021 OF ALOOR POLICE STATION , Thrissur

PETITIONER/S:

1 LAVIN

AGED 31 YEARS

S/O. SUDHGAKARAN, PANATT HOUSE, ALATHUR DESOM, ALATHUR, P.O. ALATHUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT 678 541.

¶11

2 JITH, AGED 40 YEARS S/O. SUBRAMANYAN, KALAPPURAKKAL HOUSE, PERINJANAM P.O. KODUNGALLORE TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT 680 686.

¶12

3 ABHIJITH,

¶13

AGED 28 YEARS

¶14

S/O. ASHOKAN, KALATHIL HOUSE, PALLITHODE P.O. CHERTHALA VILLAGE, CHERTHALA TALUK, ALALPPUZHA DISTRICT 688 524.

¶15

4 EMMANUEL, AGED 22 YEARS S/O. JOY, ARAKKATHARA HOUSE, KOMBATHU KADAVU P.O. MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT 680 682.

¶16

5 ANILKUMAR, AGED 32 YEARS S/O. VIJAYAN, PULICKAL HOUSE, UPPUTHODE P.O. UDUMPANCHOLA TALUK, IDUKKI DISTRICT, 685 604.

¶17

6 VIJEESH,

¶18

AGED 40 YEARS S/O. MALLIKA, MUTTATHIL HOUSE, KANAKAMALA, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT, 680 689.

¶19

¶20

Crl.M.C.No.1140 of 2021

¶21

7 SAHJALAL HUSSAIN, AGED 20 YEARS C/O. MUSLIMUDDIN, GERUATI DESOM, GERUALI NAGAON, NAGAON DISTRICT, ASSAM 782 140.

¶22

BY ADV. SRI.N.L.BITTO

¶23

RESPONDENT/S:

¶24

1 THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ALOOR POLICE STATION THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM 682 031.

¶25

2 ANEESH AGED 36 YEARS S/O. ABDUL RAHIM, MANAKULANGARA PARAMBIL HOUSE, THAZHEKAD ALTHARA DESOM THAZHEKAD VILLAGE, CHALAKUDY TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT 680 683.

¶26

3 RANJITH RAMANKUTTY

¶27

AGED 39 YEARS C/O. RAMANKUTTY R.N.A.S. KULSMBI CHAWL, ENYAT NAGAR, BANDUP, MAHARASHTRA 4000078, PRESENTLY RESIDING A T C/O. RAMANKUTTY, THATHAMPILLY HOUSE, THAZHEKAD P.O. CHALAKUDY TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT 680 683.

¶28

R2-3 BY ADV. JITHIN BABU A

¶29

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION

¶30

ON 18.03.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE

¶31

FOLLOWING:

¶32

¶33

Crl.M.C.No.1140 of 2021

¶34

ORDER

¶35

Dated this the 18^th day of March , 2021

¶36

Petitioners are the accused in Crime No.50 of 2021 registered at the Aloor Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 324, 325, 506 r/w 149 of IPC. The de facto complainant, at whose instance the crime was registered and the other injured person are arrayed as respondents 2 and 3. Annexure III and IV affidavits have been filed by respondents 2 and 3 stating that the dispute which led to registration of the crime, has been settled amicably and they have no subsisting grievance in the matter.

¶37

2. Heard the learned Public Prosecutor also,

¶38

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

¶39

3. Having considered the gravity of the offences alleged, nature of the injury caused and having perused the affidavit filed by respondents

¶40

Crl.M.C.No.1140 of 2021 4

¶41

2 and 3, the contents of which are submitted to be

¶42

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.

¶43

In the result, this Crl.M.C is allowed. Annexure I FIR and all proceedings in Crime No.50 of 2021 registered at the Aloor Police Station is

quashed.

Sd/-

Scl/18.03.2021

Crl.M.C.No.1140 of 2021

¶48

¶49

APPENDIX

¶50

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶51

ANNEXURE 1 A TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO. 50 OF 201 OF THE ALOOR POLICE STATION DATED 1/2/2021.

¶52

ANNEXURE II ORIGINAL AFFIDAVIT OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 10/2/2021.

¶53

ANNEXURE III ORIGINAL AFFIDAVIT OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 10/2/2021 .

Lavin v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lavin v. the 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

Sajeesh Vs State of Kerala

Anu Sahad Vs State of Kerala

Kabeer Alias Jabir Vs State of Kerala

Brindhan @ Ranjith Vs State of Kerala

Mohammed @ Kunhappu Vs Sandeep

Nasheed.M Vs State of Kerala