Allowed

Kiran v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC25 Oct 2022Crl.MC/1767/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed criminal proceedings against petitioners accused of snatching a scooter under IPC Section 392. Quashing was permitted because the dispute involving the financier's loan default was settled, none of the accused had criminal antecedents, and the victim acquiesced to quashing.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Misc. Case No.1767/2022 allowed. All further proceedings in C.C.No.1797/2016 against petitioners in the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Attingal, are quashed.

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

¶1

Crl.M.C.No.1767/22

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.

¶6

TUESDAY, THE 25^TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2022 / 3RD KARTHIA, 1944

¶7

CRL.MC NO. 1767 OF 2022

¶8

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENTCC 1797/2016 OF JUDICIAL

¶9

MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -II,ATTINGAL

¶10

PETITIONER:

¶11

1 KIRAN, AGED 28 YEARS, KIRAN BHAVAN, KUNNUMPURAM, CHEMPAZHANTHY, NEAR ANIYOOR TEMPLE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN – 695 587.

¶12

2 SAGAR, AGED 32 YEARS, PRASANTHI, KUNNUMPURAM, CHEMPAZHANTHY, NEAR ANIYOOR TEMPLE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN – 695 587.

¶13

BY ADV.LATHEESH SEBASTIAN

¶14

RESPONDENTS:

¶15

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

¶16

2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER, MANGALAPURAM POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN – 695 104.

¶17

Crl.M.C.No.1767/22

¶18

¶19

3 SHAFI, AGED 52 YEARS,

¶20

NIZA MANZIL, PARAMBICHIRA, KIZHUVILLAM VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN – 695 504.

¶21

BY SRI.M.P.PRASHANTH, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶22

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25.10.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

Crl.M.C.No.1767/22

O R D E R

Petitioners are accused Nos.1 and 2 in Crime No.1388 of 2016 of Mangalapuram Police Station, which is now pending as C.C.No.1797 of 2016 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Attingal. The offence alleged against the petitioners is under Section 392 of IPC.

¶27

The prosecution case is that on 03.10.2016 at about 1 am, the accused persons forcefully took away the scooter bearing registration No.KL-16M/3470, ridden by the 3^rd respondent and thereby committed the offence. Annexure-A1 is the final report submitted, and this Crl.M.C. is filed for quashing all further proceedings pursuant to the same.

¶28

Heard Sri.Latheesh Sebastian, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri.M.P.Prashanth, learned Public Prosecutor for the State and Smt.Ramya Raveendran, learned counsel for the 3^rd respondent.

¶29

Prayer for quashing the proceedings is sought mainly on the ground that the dispute between the parties has been settled. Annexure-2 affidavit sworn by the 3^rd respondent/de

¶30

Crl.M.C.No.1767/22

¶31

¶32

facto complainant is filed along with this Crl.M.C. to substantiate the settlement. In the said affidavit, the 3^rd 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 3^rd 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.

¶33

The offence alleged against the petitioners is under Section 392 of IPC. Usually, the prosecution for the said offence cannot be quashed based on settlement alone, taking into account its serious nature. However, in this case, it is an undisputed fact that the vehicle was taken possession by the financier from whom the 3^rd respondent had availed a loan and committed default. Now, it is reported that the disputes between the parties have been settled, and therefore, I deem it appropriate to quash the proceedings against the petitioner.

¶34

Crl.M.C.No.1767/22

¶35

¶36

While taking this view, I have also taken note of the fact that none of the petitioners has any antecedents as well.

¶37

In the result, this Crl.M.C. is allowed, and Annexure-1 final report submitted in Crime No.1388 of 2016 of Mangalapuram Police Station and all further proceedings in C.C.No.1797 of 2016

¶38

on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Attingal, against the petitioners are hereby quashed.

¶39

Sd/-

¶40

ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.

JUDGE

DG/25.10.22

Crl.M.C.No.1767/22

APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 1767/2022

¶46

PETITIONER ANNEXURES

¶47

Annexure1 TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN CRIME NO.1388/2016 OF MANGALAPURAM POLICE STATION.

¶48

Annexure2 AFFIDAVIT EXECUTED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

Kiran v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kiran 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shibi Vs State of Kerala

Josy.O.a Vs State of Kerala

Gunasekharan Vs State of Kerala

Sanjay Kumar, Vs State of Kerala

M.Jafer Sadik Vs State of Kerala

Thambi Vs the State of Kerala