Allowed

Sajeevan v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC10 Mar 2021Crl.MC/48/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner accused of assaulting his father was granted relief to quash criminal proceedings. The court noted the dispute was resolved, the father forgave him via affidavit, and found no public interest remained in continuing the prosecution under Sections 324 and 326 IPC.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Misc. Case allowed; First Information Report and further proceedings in Crime No.699/2020 of Cheranellur Police Station pending before Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-IX, Ernakulam quas

Sajeevan 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

WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 19TH PHALGUNA, 1942

¶5

Crl.MC.No.48 OF 2021(E)

¶6

CRIME NO.699/2020 OF CHERANELLOOR POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM

¶7

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

¶8

SAJEEVAN

¶9

AGED 34 YEARS

¶10

S/O.SIVADASAN, CHERUVAKKADU HOUSE, FEDERAL BANK THYKKAVU LINK ROAD, CHERANALLUR, PIN 683 544

¶11

BY ADVS.

¶12

SRI.C.P.UDAYABHANU SRI.NAVANEETH.N.NATH

¶13

RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT:

¶14

1 STATE OF KERALA REP.BY THE S. I OF POLICE (CRIME NO.699/20) CHERANALLUR POLICE STATION, REP.BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM 31

¶15

2 SIVADASAN

¶16

AGED 60, S/O.KRISHNAN, CHERUVAKKADU HOUSE, FEDERAL BANK THYKKAVU LINK ROAD, CHERANALLUR, PIN 683 544

¶17

R2 BY ADV. ABHISHEK M. KUNNATHU

¶18

OTHER PRESENT:

¶19

R1- SRI.RENJITH.T.R,PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶20

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10.03.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

CRL.M.C.NO.48 OF 2021

¶22

¶23

O R D E R

¶24

Dated this the 10^th day of March 2021

¶25

Petitioner is the accused in Crime No.699/2020

¶26

registered at the Cheranellur Police Station, Ernakulam City for offences punishable under Sections 324 & 326 of IPC. The allegation is that the petitioner had assaulted his father, resulting the father sustaining fractures. The petitioner's father is arrayed as the second respondent, has filed Annexure-III affidavit, stating that the dispute, which was the reason for the incident and registration of the crime, has been resolved amicably and he has forgiven the petitioner.

¶27

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

¶28

Having considered the gravity of the offences alleged, nature of the injury caused and having perused the affidavit filed by the second respondent, the contents of which are submitted to be true and voluntary, I am satisfied that the dispute is settled and no public interest

¶29

CRL.M.C.NO.48 OF 2021

¶30

¶31

is involved in this matter. The fact that the injured person is petitioner's father and has filed an affidavit condoning the misdeed of his son, I am inclined to grant the relief. 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.

¶32

In the result, this Crl.M.C is allowed. Annexure-I First Information Report and further proceedings in Crime No.699/2020 of Cheranellur Police Station, pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-IX, Ernakulam is quashed.

Sd/-

V.G.ARUN

JUDGE

CRL.M.C.NO.48 OF 2021

¶38

¶39

APPENDIX