Allowed

Prakash v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC19 Dec 2022Crl.MC/1368/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court allowed a criminal miscellaneous petition seeking quashing of further proceedings. The Court found the dispute private and noted a settlement affidavit from the complainant with no objection to quashing, applying the principles in Gian Singh.

What did the court decide?

The final report in Crime No.667 of 2014 and all further proceedings in C.C.No.484 of 2017 against the petitioners are hereby quashed.

Prakash Vs State of Kerala — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

Crl.M.C.No.1368/21

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.

¶6

MONDAY, THE 19^TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2022 / 28TH AGRAHAYANA, 1944

¶7

CRL.MC NO. 1368 OF 2021

¶8

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENTCC 484/2017 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -V, TVM (SPECIAL COURT-MARKLIST CASES)

¶9

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.1 TO 5:

¶10

1 PRAKASH,

¶11

AGED 36 YEARS, S/O.RAJAN, T.C.43/1125, PUTHUVALPUTHENVEEDU, KAMALESWARAM, MUTTATHARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.

¶12

2 SAJITH, AGED 30 YEARS, S/O.SATHYAN, T.C.43/, PUTHUVALPUTHENVEEDU, KAMALESWARAM, MUTTATHARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.

¶13

3 BALAJI @ DEEPU, AGED 32 YEARS, S/O.MOHANAN, T.C.43/1125, PUTHUVALPUTHENVEEDU, KAMALESWARAM, MUTTATHARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.

¶14

4 AJU @ SARASAPPAN, AGED 28 YEARS, S/O.SREEKUMAR, T.C.43/1080, PUTHUVALPUTHENVEEDU, KAMALESWARAM, MUTTATHARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.

¶15

5 ANEESH,

¶16

¶17

Crl.M.C.No.1368/21

¶18

AGED 27 YEARS, S/O.ANIL, T.C.65/1183, PUTHUVALPUTHENVEEDU, KAMALESWARAM, MUTTATHARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.

¶19

BY ADVS. PARVATHY S.KRISHNAN SHRI.MITHUN P.

¶20

RESPONDENTS/DE FACTO COMPLAINANT:

¶21

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

¶22

2 SYAMRAJ, AGED 31 YEARS, S/O.REMANAN, RESIDING AT T.C.43/1260, PUTHUVALPUTHENVEEDU, KAMALESWARAM, MUTTATHARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – 695 009.

¶23

BY ADV.JITHIN CHANDRAN C.T.

¶24

SRI. VIPIN NARAYAN -PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶25

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19.12.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

Crl.M.C.No.1368/21

O R D E R

Petitioners are accused Nos.1 to 5 in Crime No.667 of 2014 of Poonthura Police Station, which is now pending as C.C.No.484 of 2017 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-V, Thiruvananthapuram.

¶30

Offences alleged against the petitioners are under Section 294(b), 341, 427, 323 and 34 IPC. The 2^nd respondent is the de facto complainant. Annexure-A1 is the final report submitted and this Crl.M.C. is filed for quashing all further proceedings.

¶31

Heard Sri.Mithun P., learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri.Vipin Narayan, learned Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri.Jithin, learned counsel for the 2^nd respondent.

¶32

Prayer for quashing the proceedings is sought mainly

¶33

on the ground that the dispute between the parties has been settled. Annexure-A2 affidavit sworn by the 2^nd respondent/de facto complainant is filed along with this Crl.M.C. to substantiate

¶34

Crl.M.C.No.1368/21 4

¶35

the settlement. In the said affidavit, the 2^nd respondent/de facto complainant had specifically acknowledged the aforesaid settlement and also conveyed the no-objection to quash the proceedings against the petitioners herein. The learned counsel appearing for the 2^nd respondent/de facto complainant also confirms the same. The learned Public Prosecutor, upon instructions, submitted that the Station House Officer concerned has verified the veracity of the same and found it to be genuine.

¶36

The allegations would reveal that the dispute is purely private in nature. In such circumstances, by applying the principles laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Another [(2012) 10 SCC 303] , proceedings can be quashed by invoking the powers of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. This is particularly because, on account of the settlement, no fruitful purpose would be served by allowing the prosecution to continue.

¶37

In the result, this Crl.M.C. is allowed, and Annexure-A1 final report submitted in Crime No.667 of 2014 of Poonthura

¶38

Crl.M.C.No.1368/21

¶39

¶40

Police Station and all further proceedings in C.C.No.484 of 2017 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-V, Thiruvananthapuram, against the petitioners are hereby quashed.

¶41

Sd/-

¶42

ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A. JUDGE

DG/20.12.22

Crl.M.C.No.1368/21

APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 1368/2021

¶47

PETITIONER ANNEXURES

¶48

ANNEXURE A1 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT/ CHARGE SHEET, IN CRIME NO.667 OF 2014 OF POONTHURA POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. ANNEXURE A2 THE AFFIDAVIT, SOLEMNLY AFFIRMED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT / DEFACTO COMPLAINANT.

Prakash v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prakash 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Thomas John Vs State of Kerala

Nabeesa @ Ithatha Vs State of Kerala

Muhammed Ali Vs State of Kerala

Sruthy Vs State of Kerala

Biju Vs State of Kerala

C.Sukumar Vs State of Kerala