Allowed

Sajin v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC15 Mar 2021Crl.MC/865/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court allowed a petition and quashed pending criminal proceedings initiated under sections 143, 147, 148, 149 and 307 of the IPC. The court held that since the dispute between religious groups was settled amicably with peace restored, continuing proceedings would constitute an abuse of process.

What did the court decide?

Crl.M.C. No. 865 of 2021 allowed; Proceedings in S.C. No. 119 of 2016 quashed.

Sajin 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

MONDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 24TH PHALGUNA, 1942

¶5

Crl.MC.No.865 OF 2021(G)

¶6

SC 119/2016 OF II ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

¶7

CRIME NO.1127/2014 OF Parassala Police Station , Thiruvananthapuram

¶8

PETITIONER/S:

¶9

1 SAJIN AGED 30 YEARS S/O. CHRISTUDAS, UDHIKKATTUMANNADI VEETTIL, VLATHANKARA, MACHIYODE DESOM, CHENKAL VILLAGE, VLATHANKARA P. O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.

¶10

2 PRINCE

¶11

AGED 27 YEARS

¶12

S/O. PRAKASH, PATTIMON PURAYIDAM VEEDU, VLATHANKARA, MACHIYODE DESOM, CHENKAL VILLAGE, VLATHANKARA P. O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.

¶13

3 AJESH AGED 26 YEARS S/O. CHRISTUDAS, RANJITH BHAVAN, VLATHANKARA, MACHIYODE DESOM, CHENKAL VILLAGE, VLATHANKARA P. O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.

¶14

4 AJITH AGED 28 YEARS S/O. VIJAYAN, KURNIKULAM, NOCHIYOOR DESOM, CHENKAL VILLGE, CHENKAL P. O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.

¶15

5 SHIJIN

¶16

AGED 28 YEARS S/O. SASI, PLANKAVILA VEEDU, VLATHANKARA, MACHIYODE DESOM, CHENKAL VILLAGE, VLATHANKARA P. O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.

¶17

Crl.M.C.No.865 of 2021

¶18

¶19

6 DEENU

¶20

AGED 28 YEARS S/O. SREEDHARAN, PERIYA VEEDU, VLATHANKARA, MACHIYODE DESOM, CHENKAL VILLAGE, VLATHANKARA P. O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.

¶21

BY ADVS. SRI.R.T.PRADEEP SMT.M.BINDUDAS SRI.K.C.HARISH

¶22

RESPONDENT/S:

¶23

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

¶24

2 PRAJEEB, AGED 28 YEARS S/O.BALACHANDRAN, MEEKKETHURUTHUVILA VEEDU, MLA ROAD, VLATHANKARA, MACHIYODE, VLATHANKARA P. O., CHENKAL VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT - 695132.

¶25

R2 BY ADV. V.VIJULAL

¶26

OTHER PRESENT:

¶27

SR.PP.C.S.HRITHWIK

¶28

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15.03.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶29

¶30

Crl.M.C.No.865 of 2021

¶31

ORDER

¶32

Dated this the 15^th day of March , 2021

¶33

Petitioners are the accused in Crime No.1127 of 2014 registered at the Parassala Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147,

¶34

148, 149 and 307 of IPC, now pending as S.C.No.119 of 2016 on the files of the IInd Additional Sessions Court, Thiruvananthapuram. The de facto complainant, at whose instance the crime was registered, is arrayed as the second respondent. Annexure II affidavit has been filed by the second respondent stating that the dispute

¶35

which led to registration of the crime, has been settled amicably and he has no subsisting grievance in the matter. The incident occurred pursuant to a dispute between the parishioners of a church and devotees of a temple. The Secretary

¶36

¶37

Crl.M.C.No.865 of 2021

¶38

of the Temple Committee and the Vicar of the Church have filed affidavits in connected cases affirming that the dispute having been resolved, peace has been restored in the area.

¶39

2. Heard the learned Public Prosecutor also,

¶40

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

¶41

3. 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

¶42

be true and voluntary, I am satisfied that the dispute is settled. Even though the offence under Section 307 IPC is alleged, the fact that the incident is the offshoot of a dispute between two groups, the settlement of which has brought back peace to the area, is a relevant consideration, as held by the Honourable Supreme Court in Narinder

¶43

Crl.M.C.No.865 of 2021

¶44

¶45

Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another

¶46

[(2014) 6 SCC 466] . 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

¶48

proceedings in S.C.No.119 of 2016 on the files of the IInd Additional Sessions Court,

¶49

Thiruvananthapuram is quashed.

Sd/-

V.G.ARUN JUDGE

Scl/15.03.2021

Crl.M.C.No.865 of 2021

¶54

¶55

APPENDIX

¶56

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶57

ANNEXURE I TRUE COPY OF FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO.1127/2014 OF PARASSALA POLICE STATION IN S.C.NO.119/2016 BEFORE THE 11ND ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶58

ANNEXURE II AFFIDAVIT OF CW1 DATED 7.2.2021 EXPRESSING HIS UNEQUIVOCAL CONSENT TO QUASH THE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE PETITIONERS.

Sajin v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sajin 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

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

Yusaf P.A. Vs State of Kerala

Vineesh Gopinath Vs the State of Kerala

Asif Aslam Vs State of Kerala

Siddique C.A. @ Aboobacker Siddique Vs State of Kerala

Shibu Vs State of Kerala