Allowed

Vijaya Raghavan, v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC1 Sept 2022Crl.MC/1278/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court quashed criminal proceedings against three accused persons in a private dispute involving assault, vehicle collision, and BNS offences. The Court held that since the matter was settled amicably with no subsisting grievance, continuing prosecution served no purpose, invoking Section 482 CrPC based on Gian Singh.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of Final Report in Crime No.183/2019 and all further proceedings in C.C. No.384/2019 pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court I, Perinthalmanna.

Vijaya Raghavan, Vs the State of Kerala — Quashing and FIR | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2022 / 10 TH BHADRA, 1944

¶5

CRL.MC NO. 1278 OF 2021

¶6

CRIME NO.183/2019 OF Perinthalmanna Police Station, Malappuram
CC 384/2019 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -I,

¶7

PERINTHALMANNA

¶8

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.1 TO 3:

¶9

1VIJAYA RAGHAVAN,
AGED 58 YEARS
S/O.LATE RAGHAVAN NAIR,ANUPAMA HOUSE,
PARIYAPURAM,THOOTHA.P.O, ALIPARAMBU VILLAGE,
PERINTHALMANNA TALUK,MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-679357.

¶10

2BABURAJ,
AGED 50 YEARS
S/O.LATE RAGHAVAN NAIR,INDIRALAYAM HOUSE,
PARIYAPURAM,THOOTHA.P.O,
ALIPARAMBU VILLAGE,PERINTHALMANNA TALUK,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-679357.

¶11

3MUNEER.C.K,
AGED 31 YEARS
S/O.AHAMED,HEADMASTER,ALP SCHOOL,
PARIYAPURAM,CHERKUNNATH HOUSE,EDATHARA,THOOTHA.P.O,
ALIPARAMBU VILLAGE,PERINTHALMANNA TALUK,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-679357.

¶12

BY ADVS.
ANOOP.V.NAIR
DEVI P.

¶13

RESPONDENTS/STATE/COMPLAINANT:

¶14

1THE STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
ERNAKULAM-682031.

¶15

2 THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE PERINTHALMANNA POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-679322.

¶16

CRL.MC NO. 1278 OF 2021

¶17

¶18

3RAJESH. K.U
AGED 45 YEARS
S/O.RAVEENDRAN NAIR,PANGOOTTIL
HOUSE,MANJERI.P.O, MANJERI AMSOM AND
DESOM,ERANAD TALUK,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-676121.

¶19

BY ADV
ADV R.SREEHARI
ADV. SREEJA V. - SR.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶20

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 01.09.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED
THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

CRL.MC NO. 1278 OF 2021

¶22

3

¶23

ORDER

¶24

The petitioners are the accused Nos.1 to 3 in Crime No.183/2019 on the files of Perinthalmanna Police Station, which is now pending as C.C. No.384/2019 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court I, Perinthalmanna. The offences alleged against

¶25

the petitioners are under Sections 143, 146, 147, 341, 323, 324,

¶26

294(b), and 427 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶27

The prosecution case is that, on 18.01.2019 at about 3.15 p.m., the petitioners along with some other persons formed into an unlawful assembly and assaulted the defacto complainant. It is also alleged that when the defacto complainant returned from the scene, his vehicle was followed by the accused persons and in the course of which the vehicle of the petitioner collided with the car of the defacto complainant and in the said incident certain damages were also caused to defacto complainant’s car. Annexure I is the Final Report submitted by the Police and this Crl.M.C. is filed for quashing all further proceedings pursuant thereto.

¶28

Heard Sri.Anoop V. Nair, learned counsel appearing for

¶29

¶30

CRL.MC NO. 1278 OF 2021

¶31

the petitioners, Smt.Sreeja V., learned Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri.R. Sreehari, learned counsel appearing for the 3^rd respondent.

¶32

The prayer for quashing the above proceedings is sought by the petitioners on the ground that, the dispute between the parties has been settled and to substantiate the same, the defacto complainant has sworn Annexure II. The aforesaid affidavit indicates that the matter has been settled and the defacto complainant has no subsisting grievance against the petitioners herein. He also conveyed that he has no objection in quashing the proceedings against the petitioners herein. The learned counsel for the 3^rd respondent/defacto complainant also confirmed the same. The learned Public Prosecutor upon instructions submitted that the veracity of the settlement was verified by the Station House officer concerned and before the SHO also, the defacto complainant has reiterated that, he does not have any objection in quashing the proceedings as he has no subsisting grievance against the petitioners herein.

¶33

Going through the materials available on record, it is

¶34

CRL.MC NO. 1278 OF 2021

¶35

5

¶36

discernible that, the dispute is basically private in nature and on account of settlement arrived at between the parties, no purpose would be served if the proceedings against the petitioners herein were allowed to continue. In such circumstances, the chances of a successful prosecution are very bleak. Therefore, I am of the view that going by the decision in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Another [2012(4) KLT 108], this is a fit case in which the powers of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure can be invoked.

¶37

Accordingly, this Crl.M.C. is allowed. Annexure I Final Report in Crime No.183/2019 on the files of Perinthalmanna Police Station and all further proceedings in C.C. No.384/2019 pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court I, Perinthalmanna as against the petitioners are hereby quashed.

¶38

Sd/-

¶39

ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.
JUDGE

¶40

scs

¶41

CRL.MC NO. 1278 OF 2021

¶42

¶43

APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 1278/2021

¶44

PETITIONER ANNEXURES
ANNEXURE ITRUE COPY OF FINAL REPORT IN CC
NO.384/2019 ON THE FILE OF JFCM-
I,PERINTHALMANNA
ANNEXURE IITRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY
THE 3RD RESPONDENT, SETTLING THE
MATTER AMICABLY OUT OF COURT WITH THE
PETITIONERS DATED 20.02.2021.

Vijaya Raghavan, v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijaya Raghavan, 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

P.Janeesh Vs State of Kerala

M.Santhosh Vs State of Kerala

Tony Thomas Chammany Vs State of Kerala

Rayees, Vs Remeshan

Shobin John Vs State of Kerala

Saju P.P. Vs State of Kerala