Allowed

Tijo Mathew Varghese v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC5 Mar 2021Crl.MC/272/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed a criminal miscellaneous petition to quash criminal proceedings against petitioners accused under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 324 r/w 149 of IPC. Based on the settled nature of the dispute and affidavits from respondents, the court held that continuing the trial would be an abuse of process.

What did the court decide?

The criminal miscellaneous case was allowed and the proceedings in C.C.No. 319 of 2011 were quashed.

Tijo Mathew Varghese Vs 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

FRIDAY, THE 05TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 14TH PHALGUNA, 1942

¶5

Crl.MC.No.272 OF 2021(D)

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC 319/2011 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -I,PATHANAMTHITTA

¶7

CRIME NO.95/2011 OF Aranmula Police Station , Pathanamthitta

¶8

PETITIONER/S:

¶9

1 TIJO MATHEW VARGHESE AGED 28 YEARS

¶10

S/O. E.C. VARGHESE, EDAVANATHUKAVIL HOUSE, ANGADICAL, PUTHENKAVU P.O, CHENGANNUR, PIN-689 123

¶11

2 RAJEEV P JOHN, AGED 34 YEARS

¶12

S/O. P.M. JOHN, PATHANPARAYIL, NARANGANAM P.O, PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN-689 N642

¶13

3 BENSON MATHEW, AGED 29 YEARS

¶14

S/O. THOMAS MATHEW, NIRAKATHU BABUVILLA, MARAMON P.O, MARAMON, PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN-689 549

¶15

4 NIJIL C VARGHESE, AGED 30 YEARS

¶16

S/O. VARGHESE C, CHACKALAKUZHIYIL, CHERUKOLE, KOZHENCHERY, PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN-689 650

¶17

5 SIBY THOMAS, AGED 30 YEARS

¶18

S/O. THOMAS ABRAHAM NEDUMKADAVIL, KANJEETTUKARA P.O, AYIROOR, PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN-689 611

¶19

6 NIGIL K. JOHN @ LIGIL K. JOHN, AGED 30 YEARS

¶20

S/O. JOHN CHACKO, KUNDOOR VEEDU, NALKALLICKAL MURI, ARANMULA VILLAGE, PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN-689 611

¶21

7 GITHIN V.R, AGED 28 YEARS S/O. RAJAN PHILIP, VAZHEMALAYIL MALAPALLI EAST, PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN-689 584

¶22

Crl.MC.No.272 OF 2021(D)

¶23

¶24

8 ANSARY T.A, AGED 31 YEARS S/O. ABDUL AZIS, THEKKEMAVUMKAMANNIL, NARAGANAM NORTH P.O, KOZHENCHERY, PATHANAMTHITTA, 689 642.

¶25

9 RINO JOHN, AGED 28 YEARS S/O. JOHN THOMAS, NIRANNA NILATHU, MALLAPPAZHASSERY, ARANMULA P.O, KOZHENCHERY, PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN-689 533 BY ADV. SRI.T.K.BIJU (MANJINIKARA)

¶26

RESPONDENT/S:

¶27

1 STATE OF KERALA

¶28

REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031 2 SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE (CRIME NO. 95/2011), ARANMULA POLICE STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA.

¶29

3 VINEETH KUMAR AGED 28 YEARS

¶30

S/O. VIJAYAN PILLAI, KAVUMPURATH VEEDU, THAZHAM ARATTUKADAVU, WARD NO. 16, PATHANAMTHITTA MUNICIPALITY, KOAZHENCHERRY TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT 689 643.

¶31

4 ABHILASH AGED 28 YEARS S/O. SREEDHARAN PILLAI, ANU BHAVAN, NEAR MALAYALAPUZHA TEMPLE, ERAM MURI, MALAYALAPUZHA VILLAGE, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT 689 643.

¶32

5 ASWIN AGED 28 YEARS S/O. RADHAKRISHNAN, KANJIRAMNILKUNNATHIL HOUSE, ELAKOLLOOR MURI, PRAMADAM VILLAGE, KONNI, PATHANAMTHITTA 689 532.

¶33

R3-5 BY ADV. ANNIE M.ABRAHAM

¶34

OTHER PRESENT:

¶35

PP MAYA M.N.;SR.PP.C.S.HRITHWIK

¶36

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05.03.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶37

Crl.MC.No.272 OF 2021(D)

¶38

¶39

O R D E R

¶40

Dated this the 5^th day of March, 2021

¶41

Petitioners are the accused in Crime No. 950 of 2011 registered at the Aranmula Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147,148,323,324 r/w 149 of IPC, now pending as C.C.No. 319 of 2011 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Pathanamthitta. The de facto complainant, at whose instance the crime was registered, and the other injured persons are arrayed as respondents 3 to 5. Annexures A3, A4 and A5 are the affidavits filed by respondents 3, 4 and 5 respectively, stating that the dispute, which led to registration of the crime, has been settled amicably and they have no subsisting grievance in the matter.

¶42

Heard the learned Public Prosecutor also, who, 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 respondents 3 to 5, 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. The fact that the petitioners and the de facto complainants were students when the accident occurred, is

¶44

Crl.MC.No.272 OF 2021(D)

¶45

¶46

also taken into consideration . 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.

¶47

In the result, this Crl.M.C is allowed. The proceedings in C.C.No. 319 of 2011 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Pathanamthitta is quashed.

¶48

Sd/V.G ARUN JUDGE

¶49

¶50

Crl.MC.No.272 OF 2021(D)

¶51

¶52

APPENDIX

¶53

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶54

ANNEXURE A1 A TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO. 95/2011 OF ARANMULA POLICE STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA, DATED 12.02.2011. ANNEXURE A2 A TRUE COPYP OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO. 95/2011 OF ARANMULA POLICE STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA, DATED 27.09.2011. ANNEXURE A3 A TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 16.09.2020. ANNEXURE A4 A TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 16.09.2020. ANNEXURE A5 A TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT OF THE 5TH RESPONDENT DATED 16.09.2020.

Tijo Mathew Varghese v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tijo Mathew Varghese 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sankaranarayanan Vs State of Kerala

Sudeep, Vs State of Kerala

Muthoot Housing Finance Company Limited Vs Rameshkumar. B

Vishnu Vs State of Keral

Abhilash Vs State of Kerala

Riyas, Vs State of Kerala