Allowed

Vineesh Gopinath v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC12 Mar 2021Crl.MC/348/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a criminal miscellaneous petition and quashed pending challan proceedings against six accused persons accused of rash and negligent hurt and other offences arising from a dispute that was resolved amicably between the parties via a final report.

What did the court decide?

Challan proceedings in Crime No.312/2014 pending as C.C.No.449/2015 in the JFMC, Adoor are quashed.

Vineesh Gopinath 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

FRIDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 21ST PHALGUNA, 1942

¶5

Crl.MC.No.348 OF 2021(C)

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC 449/2015 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS , ADOOR

¶7

CRIME NO.312/2014 OF KODUMON POLICE STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA

¶8

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 TO 6:

¶9

1 VINEESH GOPINATH

¶10

AGED 32 YEARS

¶11

S/O.GOPINATHAN NAIR, VINOD BHAVAN, BHAGAVATHIKKUM PADINJATTU MURI, PANDALAM THEKKEKARA VILLAGE, ADOOR TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT-691 525.

¶12

2 AKHIL,

¶13

AGED 27 YEARS

¶14

S/O.SIVANKUTTY, SIVASHAILAM VEEDU, EDAMALI MURI, PANDALAM THEKKEKARA VILLAGE, ADOOR TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT-691 525.

¶15

3 MIDHUN,

¶16

AGED 31 YEARS

¶17

S/O.MURALEEDHARA KURUP, MURALI SADHANAM, EDAMALI MURI, PANDALAM THEKKEKARA VILLAGE, ADOOR TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT-691 525.

¶18

4 AKHIL M.NAIR,

¶19

AGED 31 YEARS

¶20

S/O.MURALEEDHARAN, AKHIL NIVAS, ANANDAPALLY MURI, ADOOR VILLAGE, ADOOR TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT691 525.

¶21

5 VISHNU DETH,

¶22

AGED 25 YEARS

¶23

S/O.HARICHANDRAN, VINOD BHAVAN, EDAMALI MURI, PANDALAM THEKKEKARA VILLAGE, ADOOR TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT-691 525.

¶24

6 DEEPU CHANDRAN, AGED 25 YEARS S/O.RAMACHANDRAN, CHARUVIL VEETTIL, VALLICODE MURI AND VILALGE, ADOOR TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT-689 648.

¶25

CRL.M.C.NO.348 OF 2021

¶26

¶27

BY ADVS. SRI.MANU RAMACHANDRAN SRI.M.KIRANLAL SRI.R.RAJESH (VARKALA) SRI.T.S.SARATH SHRI.SAMEER M NAIR

¶28

RESPONDENTS/STATE & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:

¶29

1 THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031.

¶30

2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER POLICE STATION OF KODUMON, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT689 555.

¶31

3 SOORAJ AGED 27 YEARS S/O.KRISHNANKUTTY NAIR, KOTTINATTU VEEDU, KUDAMUKKU MURI, VALLICKODE VILLAGE, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT689 513.

¶32

R3 BY ADV. ANSU VARGHESE

¶33

OTHER PRESENT:

¶34

PP T.R.RENJITH

¶35

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12.03.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶36

CRL.M.C.NO.348 OF 2021

¶37

¶38

O R D E R

¶39

Dated this the 12^th day of March 2021

¶40

Petitioners are accused Nos. 1 to 6 in Crime No.312/2014 registered at the Kodumon Police Station, for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 341, 323 & 326 of I.P.C., now pending as C.C. No.449/2015 on the files of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Adoor. The de facto complainant, at whose instance the crime was registered is arrayed as the 3^rd respondent, has filed Annexure-A2 affidavit, stating that the dispute, which was the reason for the incident and registration of the crime, has been resolved amicably and he has no subsisting grievance against the petitioners.

¶41

Heard the learned Public Prosecutor also, who, on instructions, submits that the petitioners have no criminal antecedents.

¶42

Having considered the gravity of the offences

¶43

CRL.M.C.NO.348 OF 2021

¶44

¶45

alleged, nature of the injury caused and having perused the affidavit filed by the 3^rd respondent, 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. Even though, the offence under Section 326 of I.P.C., is alleged, the fact that the incident occurred during the course of a festival and the injury sustained is broken tooth, is 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.

¶46

In the result, this Crl.M.C is allowed. AnnexureA1 Final Report and further proceedings in Crime

¶47

CRL.M.C.NO.348 OF 2021

¶48

¶49

No.312/2014 of Kodumon Police Station, pending as

¶50

C.C.No.499/2015 on the files of Judicial First Class

¶51

Magistrate Court, Adoor are quashed.

Sd/-

V.G.ARUN

JUDGE

NB/12.03.2021

CRL.M.C.NO.348 OF 2021

¶57

¶58

APPENDIX

¶59

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶60

ANNEXURE A1

¶61

THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO.312/2014 OF POLICE STATION OF KODUMON, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT WHICH IS NOW PENDING AS CC NO.449/2015 ON THE FILES OF JFMC, ADOOR.

¶62

ANNEXURE A2 THE ORIGINAL OF THE AFFIDAVIT DATED 07.01.2021 SWORN BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT/DE FACTO COMPLAINANT.

¶63

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL

¶64

TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE

Vineesh Gopinath v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vineesh Gopinath 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

Sajeevan Vs State of Kerala

Jaffar Mm Vs State of Kerala

George Joseph @ Jinu Vs State of Kerala

K.G. Sunil Kumar @ Sunil Vs State of Kerala

Yusaf P.A. Vs State of Kerala

Rahul Vs the Sub Inspector of Police