Allowed

Sundardas, v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC21 Jul 2022Crl.MC/1551/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court quashed criminal proceedings against the fourth accused in a private dispute involving assault and property damage. The court relied on the settlement reached with the de facto complainant and the Gian Singh principles to allow the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of Annexure-A1 final report and all further proceedings in L.P.No.10 of 2003 against the petitioner.

Sundardas, Vs State of Kerala — Quashing and FIR | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

Crl.M.C.No.1551/2019 1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.

¶5

THURSDAY, THE 21^ST DAY OF JULY 2022 / 30TH ASHADHA, 1944

¶6

CRL.MC NO. 1551 OF 2019

¶7

CRIME NO.195/1996 OF West Circle Police Station, Thrissur,

¶8

Thrissur

¶9

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENTCC 121/1998 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE

¶10

OF FIRST CLASS -II,THRISSUR

¶11

PETITIONER/4th ACCUSED:

¶12

SUNDARDAS, AGED 52 YEARS, S/O.PARANGODAN, KALATHIL NHALIL HOUSE, CHALISSERY P.O., CHALISSERY DESOM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT- 679536, REP. BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, DEEPA, AGED 43, W/O.SUNDARDAS,KALATHIL NHALIL HOUSE, KUZHUR P.O., CHALAKKUDY, THRISSUR- 680 734.

¶13

BY ADVS. SADCHITH.P.KURUP SRI.C.P.ANIL RAJ

¶14

RESPONDENTS/STATE & COMPLAINANT:

¶15

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

¶16

2 JOHNY, AGED 51 YEARS,

¶17

S/O.VAREED, CHITTATTUKARA HOUSE, PUTHOOR DESOM, KAIPPARAMBU VILLAGE, PUTHUR P.O., THRISSUR- 680 014.

¶18

BY ADV.JOSE ANTONY

¶19

Crl.M.C.No.1551/2019 2

¶20

R1 BY SRI.C.S.HRITHWIK, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶21

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21.07.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

Crl.M.C.No.1551/2019

O R D E R

Petitioner is the 4^th accused in Crime No.195 of 1996 of Thrissur West Police Station. It was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 341, 323, 427 read with Section 149 IPC.

¶26

The prosecution case is that, on 03.08.1996, the 2^nd respondent/de facto complainant was intercepted by the accused persons while he was driving a bus and he was pulled down and assaulted. Accused persons have allegedly caused damages to the bus as well. Annexure-A1 is the final report submitted by the Police. Initially cognizance thereon was taken by the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Thrissur as C.C.No.121 of 1998, in which all the other accused persons except the petitioner have participated. It is reported that the aforesaid case resulted in acquittal of all the accused persons who faced trial. Case against the petitioner has been split up and the same is now pending as L.P.No.10 of 2003 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Thrissur. This Crl.M.C. is filed for quashing all further proceedings pursuant thereto.

¶27

Crl.M.C.No.1551/2019

¶28

¶29

Heard Sri.Sadchith P.Kurup, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri.Jose Antony, learned counsel for the 2^nd respondent and Sri.C.S.Hrithwik, Public Prosecutor for the State.

¶30

Prayer for quashing the proceedings is sought mainly 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 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.

¶31

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

¶32

Crl.M.C.No.1551/2019

¶33

¶34

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.

¶35

In the result, this Crl.M.C. is allowed, and Annexure-A1 final report submitted in Crime No.195 of 1996 of Thrissur West Police Station and all further proceedings in L.P.No.10 of 2003 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Thrissur, as against the petitioner are hereby quashed.

¶36

Sd/-

¶37

ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A. JUDGE

¶38

DG/22.7.22

¶39

Crl.M.C.No.1551/2019 6

¶40

APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 1551/2019

¶41

PETITIONER ANNEXURES

¶42

ANNEXURE A1 CERTIFIED COPY OF FINAL REPORT DATED 30.08.1996 FILED BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT II, THRISSUR IN C.C.NO.121/1998 (PRESENTLY L.P.NO.10/2003). ANNEXURE A2 AFFIDAVIT DATED 22.02.2019 EXECUTED BY SECOND RESPONDENT.

Sundardas, v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sundardas, 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

Shaniraj Vs State of Kerala

Jolly George Vs State of Kerala

Ashokan Vs State of Kerala

Ahammed Sayid Vs State of Kerala

Dileepan. K Vs State of Kerala

Benny Varghese Vs State of Kerala