Allowed

Ajin Thomas v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC28 Jun 2022Crl.MC/2172/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed criminal proceedings under Sections 341, 323, 324, and 506(1) read with 34 IPC arising from a private assault dispute caused by rivalry between the parties. The court applied principles laid down in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab to allow the petitioners, citing a full settlement and no objection from victims would prevent fruitful prosecution.

What did the court decide?

The FIR and all further proceedings in the supplementary charge sheet against the petitioners are quashed.

Ajin Thomas Vs State of Kerala — Quashing and FIR | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

Crl.M.C.No.2172/22

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.

¶6

TUESDAY, THE 28^TH DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 7TH ASHADHA, 1944

¶7

CRL.MC NO. 2172 OF 2022

¶8

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC 90/2020 OF JUDICIAL

¶9

MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -I,PATHANAMTHITTA

¶10

PETITIONER/S:

¶11

1 AJIN THOMAS,

¶12

AGED 24 YEARS,

¶13

S/O.BIJU THOMAS, THARAYILETHU PANNIOLICKAL, KANJEETTUKARA P.O., AYIROOR, PATHANAMTHITTA, KERALA, PIN - 689611

¶14

2 MOHAMMED ASIF, S/O.ANSARI,

¶15

AGED 23 YEARS,

¶16

PARAKKUMUKALIL, CHERUKOL. P.O., KOZHENCHERRI, ARANMULA, PATHANAMTHITTA, KERALA, PIN – 689 650.

¶17

3 MELVIN SUNNY,

¶18

AGED 24 YEARS, S/O.SUNNY K. THOMAS, KAVANATTU SEHION VILLA, KUZHIKALA P.O., MALLAPUZHASSERY, PATHANAMTHITTA, KERALA, PIN – 689 644.

¶19

4 AROMAL P., AGED 24 YEARS, S/O.PRADEEP D., PEZHUMMOTTIL, VALLICODE, PATHANAMTHITTA, KERALA, PIN – 689 656.

¶20

5 JOEL JAYAKUMAR, AGED 24 YEARS,

¶21

S/O. JAYAKUMAR, 105 C, BB - BLOCK, EAST, SHALIMAR BAGH, NORTH WEST DELHI, PIN – 110 088.

¶22

Crl.M.C.No.2172/22

¶23

¶24

6 SONU R., AGED 25 YEARS, S/O.BIJU, PURAYIDATHIL, KOZHENCHERRY P.O., PATHANANTHITTA, KERALA, PIN – 689 641.

¶25

7 BIJILY P EASOW, AGED 40 YEARS, S/O. SARAMMA EASOW, PALAKATHARAYIL HOUSE, KOZHENCHERRY EAST P.O., KOZHENCHERRY, PATHANAMTHITTA, KERALA,PIN – 689 641.

¶26

BY ADVS. M.R.JAYAPRASAD ROOPKUMAR G.

¶27

RESPONDENTS/STATE & DE FACTO COMPLAINANTS:

¶28

1 STATE OF KERALA, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. , PIN – 682 011.

¶29

2 SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ARANMULA POLICE STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN – 689 102.

¶30

3 ASLAM P ISMAIL, AGED 22 YEARS, S/O.ISMAIL P.M., PUTHENVEETTIL PARAYIL, EDAKKUNAM, PARATHODE, KOTTAYAM, KERALA, PIN – 686 512.

¶31

4 NEJOMON T.A., AGED 24 YEARS, S/O.ASHA THANKACHAN, ALAKKOTTU KEXHEKKETHIL, MEZHIVELI, PATHANAMTHITTA, KERALA, PIN – 689 507.

¶32

5 ANOJ THOMAS, AGED 23 YEARS, S/O.THOMAS GEORGE, MUTHAVANKOTTU HOUSE, MOOLAMATTOM P.O., ARAKKULAM, IDUKKI,

¶33

Crl.M.C.No.2172/22 3

¶34

MOOLAMATTOM, KERALA, PIN – 685 589.

¶35

6 JITTO K JOSE, AGED 22 YEARS, S/O.JOSE ABRAHAM, KARIMPIL HOUSE, MUNDUKOTTACKAL P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA, KERALA 689 649.

¶36

7 VISHNU RAJ, AGED 23 YEARS, S/O.RAJBEER, PADINJARE PANAYAPPALLIL, KAZHAKKUMMURY, KAVUMBHAGOM P.O., THIRUVALLA, PATHANAMTHITTA, KERALA 689 102. BY ADVS. ARUL MURALIDHARAN ASHWIN ANTONY(K/000166/2017) THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28.06.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

Crl.M.C.No.2172/22

O R D E R

The petitioners are the accused in Crime No.1272 of 2018 of Aranmula Police station, which is now pending as C.C.No.90 of 2020 of on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Pathanamthitta. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 341, 323, 324, 506(1) read with 34 IPC.

¶41

The allegation against the petitioners is that, on 13.09.2018 the petitioners have assaulted the respondents 3 to 7 on account of political rivalry. Annexure-A1 is the FIR and Annexure-A2 is the final report. This Crl.M.C. is filed for quashing all further proceedings pursuant thereto.

¶42

Heard Sri.Jayaprasad M.R., learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri.C.S.Hrithwik, learned Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri.Arul Muraleedharan, learned counsel for the respondents 3 to 7.

¶43

The prayer for quashing the proceedings is sought mainly on the ground that the dispute between the parties has been settled. Annexures-A3 to A7 affidavits sworn by the respondents 3 to 7 are filed along with this Crl.M.C. to substantiate the settlement. In the said affidavit, the respondents 3 to 7 had explicitly acknowledged the aforesaid settlement and also conveyed the no-objection to quash the proceedings against the petitioners herein. The learned

¶44

Crl.M.C.No.2172/22

¶45

¶46

counsel appearing for respondents 3 to 7 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.

¶47

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 mainly because, on account of the settlement, no fruitful purpose would be served by allowing the prosecution to continue.

¶48

In the result, this Crl.M.C. is allowed, and Annexure-A1 FIR submitted in Crime No.1272 of 2018 of Aranmula Police Station and all further proceedings in C.C.No.90 of 2020 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Pathanamthitta, against the petitioners are hereby quashed.

¶49

Sd/-

¶50

ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A. JUDGE

DG/29.6.22

Crl.M.C.No.2172/22

APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 2172/2022

¶55

PETITIONER ANNEXURES

¶56

Annexure 1 COPY OF FIR

¶57

Annexure 2 COPY OF FINAL REPORT Annexure3 AFFIDAVIT OF 3RD RESPONDENT Annexure 4 AFFIDAVIT OF 4TH RESPONDENT Annexure 5 AFFIDAVIT OF 5TH RESPONDENT Annexure 6 AFFIDAVIT OF 6TH RESPONDENT Annexure 7 AFFIDAVIT OF 7TH RESPONDENT

¶58

Crl.M.C.No.2172/22 7

Ajin Thomas v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ajin Thomas 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

Aromal S Vs State of Kerala

Arun Vs State of Kerala

Vinaya Kumar Vs the State of Kerala

Anoj Thomas Vs State of Kerala

Mohammed Asif Vs State of Kerala

Deepu Vs State of Kerala