Allowed

Deepu v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC28 Jun 2022Crl.MC/2331/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a criminal miscellaneous petition to quash the FIR and all further proceedings. The dispute was private in nature and had been settled by the victims, satisfying the principles laid down in Gian Singh. The court invoked its inherent powers to ensure neighbourly peace.

What did the court decide?

Crl.M.C. No. 2331/22 allowed; Annexure-1 FIR submitted in Crime No. 752 of 2015 and all further proceedings in C.C.No.216 of 2016 quashed.

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

¶1

Crl.M.C.No.2331/22

¶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. 2331 OF 2022

¶8

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC 216/2016 OF JUDICIAL

¶9

MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -I, KOLLAM

¶10

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 TO 5:

¶11

1 DEEPU, S/O.DINESHAN, AGED 34 YEARS, DAIVAPURA, PALLIKKADA, PRAKKULAM CHERRY, THRIKKARUVA VILLAGE, PRAKKULAM P.O, KOLLAM, PIN – 691 602.

¶12

2 MANOJ,

¶13

AGED 36 YEARS, MUTHALUMOODU VEEDU, PALLIKKADA, PRAKKULAM CHERRY, THRIKKARUVA VILLAGE, PRAKKULAM P.O, KOLLAM, PIN – 691 602.

¶14

3 SAJAN,

¶15

AGED 36 YEARS, PALLIPADINJATTATHIL VEEDU, PALLIKKADA, PRAKKULAM CHERRY, THRIKKARUVA VILLAGE, PRAKKULAM P.O, KOLLAM, PIN – 691 502.

¶16

4 ABHIJITH, AGED 36 YEARS, PLACHERRY VEEDU, PALLIKKADA, PRAKKULAM CHERRY, THRIKKARUVA VILLAGE, PRAKKULAM P.O, KOLLAM, PIN – 691 502.

¶17

5 SOORAJ,

¶18

AGED 36 YEARS, PURATHARAYIL VEEDU, PALLIKKADA, PRAKKULAM CHERRY, THRIKKARUVA VILLAGE, PRAKKULAM P.O, KOLLAM, PIN – 691 502.

¶19

Crl.M.C.No.2331/22

¶20

¶21

BY ADVS. V.RENJITH KUMAR MOHAPRASEED MOHAN M.P.MARY

¶22

RESPONDENTS/STATE & DE FACTO COMPLAINANT:

¶23

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

¶24

2 SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ANCHALUMOODU POLICE STATION, ANCHALUMOODU P.O, KOLLAM, PIN – 691 601.

¶25

3 VIJESH, AGED 31 YEARS, MANALIL KIZHAKKATHIL, PRAKKULAM, THRIKKARUVA VILLAGE, KOLLAM, PIN – 691 602.

¶26

BY ADVS. S.JAYAKUMAR (PANAMBIL)

¶27

SRI.C.S HRITHWIK SR. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶28

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.2331/22

O R D E R

Petitioners are accused Nos.1 to 5 in Crime No.752 of 2015

¶33

of Anchalummoodu Police Station, which is now pending as C.C.No.216 of 2016, before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Kollam. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341 and 326 read with Section 149 IPC.

¶34

The prosecution case is that on account of previous animosity towards the 3^rd respondent the accused Nos.1 to 5 along with three other identifiable persons formed themselves into an unlawful assembly, wrongfully restrained the 3^rd respondent and assaulted him with a wooden stick. Annexure-1 is the FIR and Annexure-2 is the final report filed by the police. This Crl.M.C. is filed for quashing all further proceedings pursuant to Annexure-2 final report.

¶35

Heard Sri.V.Renjith Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri.C.S.Hrithwik, learned Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri.S.Jayakumar, learned counsel for the 3^rd respondent.

¶36

Prayer for quashing the proceedings is sought mainly on

¶37

Crl.M.C.No.2331/22

¶38

¶39

the ground that the dispute between the parties has been settled. Annexure-3 affidavit sworn by the 3^rd respondent/de 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.

¶40

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.

¶41

It is true that one of the offences alleged is under

¶42

Crl.M.C.No.2331/22

¶43

¶44

Section 326 of IPC. Injuries sustained by the de facto complainant is a fracture on the wrist. Parties are neighbours and now they have settled the entire disputes between them. No criminal antecedents of any of the petitioners were brought to my notice. Taking into account all the aspects mentioned above, I am inclined to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C., particularly to ensure peace among the neighbors.

¶45

In the result, this Crl.M.C. is allowed, and Annexure-1 FIR submitted in Crime No.752 of 2015 of Anchalumoodu Police Station and all further proceedings in C.C.No.216 of 2016 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Kollam, against the petitioners are hereby quashed.

¶46

Sd/-

¶47

ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A. JUDGE

DG/28.6.22

Crl.M.C.No.2331/22

APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 2331/2022

¶52

PETITIONER ANNEXURES

¶53

Annexure1 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR ALONG WITH FIS DATED 27/05/2015 IN CRIME NO. 752 / 2015 OF ANCHALUMOODU POLICE STATION, KOLLAM Annexure2 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO. 752 / 2015 OF ANCHALUMOODU POLICE STATION, KOLLAM Annexure3 THE ORIGINAL AFFIDAVIT DATED 21/02/2022 EXECUTED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

Deepu v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Deepu 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

Ajin Thomas Vs State of Kerala

Mohammed Asif Vs State of Kerala