Allowed

Lenin v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC20 Jun 2022Crl.MC/2366/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala quashed criminal proceedings against accused No. 2 and 6 in a private assault case involving Sections 143 and 147 of the IPC. The court held that since the dispute was private and a settlement had been reached with the express consent of the injured party, continuing the prosecution served no purpose.

What did the court decide?

Crl.M.C. allowed; Annexure-A1 final report and all further proceedings in C.C.No. 79/2005 and CC No.109/2021 against petitioners quashed.

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

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.

¶4

MONDAY, THE 20^TH DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 30TH JYAISHTA, 1944

¶5

CRL.MC NO. 2366 OF 2022

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC 79/2005 OF CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE ,TRIVANDRUM / SPECIAL COURT FOR TRIAL OF CYBER CRIME

¶7

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.2 AND 6:

¶8

1 LENIN, AGED 49 YEARS, S/O LEELAMONY, KARYILATHADATHIL VEEDU, KARAVOOR PO, KOLLAM. 689696, PIN - 689696

¶9

2 SAJEER, AGED 39 YEARS, S/O MUHAMMED BASHEER, BV HOUSE, NEAR GOVT VHSS ALAMCODE, ATTINGAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 695101, PIN - 695101 BY ADV LIJU. M.P

¶10

RESPONDENTS/STATE AND DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:

¶11

1 STATE OF KERALA

¶12

REP BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031

¶13

2 SAYYED ALI KHAN, AGED 40 YEARS S/O HASSAN, KALLAMPARAMPIL HOUSE, PONKUNNAM PO, KANJIRAPPALLY, KOTTAYAM. 686506, PIN - 686506

¶14

BY ADV VINOD KUMAR.C

¶15

Adv. M P Prashant-SrPP

¶16

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20.06.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

¶18

Crl.M.C No.23 66 of 2022

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

The petitioners are the accused Nos. 2 and 6 in Crime No.351/2005 of Museum Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram. The offences alleged against the petitioners and the other accused are punishable under Sections 143, 147, 324 r/w 149 of Indian Penal Code.

¶21

2 . The prosecution case is that, on 13.10.2005 due to animosity against the 2 nd respondent herein, the petitioners along with the other accused attacked him and inflicted injuries. Annexure-1 is the final report submitted by the Police. Initially, the cognizance was taken by the learned Magistrate on Annexure-1 final report. The prosecution against the 1 st petitioner herein is now pending as C.C 79/2005. The case against the 2 nd respondent was split up and the said case stands refiled as C.C 109/2021. This Crl.MC is filed for quashing all further proceedings against the petitioners herein on the basis of Annexure-1 final report.

¶22

3 . Heard Sri.Liju, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Sri. M.P.Prasanth, the learned Public Prosecutor

¶23

¶24

Crl.M.C No.23 66 of 2022

¶25

appearing for the State and Sri. Vinod Kumar , the learned counsel appearing for the 2 nd respondent.

¶26

4 . The prayer for quashing the above proceedings is sought for by the petitioners on the ground that, the dispute between the parties has been settled and to substantiate the same, the injured person has sworn Annexure-A3 affidavit. The aforesaid affidavit indicates that, the matter has been settled and the injured person has no subsisting grievance against the petitioners herein. He also conveyed that he has no objection in quashing the proceedings against the petitioners herein. The learned counsel for the 2nd respondent /injured person also confirmed the same. The learned Public Prosecutor upon instructions submitted that the veracity of the settlement was verified by the Station House officer concerned and before the SHO also, the injured person has reiterated that, he does not have any objection in quashing the proceedings as he has no subsisting grievance against the petitioners herein.

¶27

5 . Going through the materials available on record, it is discernible that, the dispute is basically private in nature and on account of settlement arrived at between the parties, no purpose

¶28

¶29

Crl.M.C No.23 66 of 2022

¶30

would be served if the proceedings against the petitioners herein were allowed to continue. In such circumstances, the chances of a successful prosecution are very bleak. Therefore, I am of the view that going by the decision in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Another [2012(4) KLT 108], this is a fit case in which the powers

¶31

of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure can be invoked.

¶32

Accordingly, this Crl.M.C. is allowed. Annexure-A1 final report submitted in Crime No.351/2005 of Museam Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram and all further proceedings in C.C.No. 79/2005 and CC No.109/2021 pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Thiruvananthapuram as against the petitioners are hereby quashed.

Sd/-

ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A

JUDGE

rpk

Crl.M.C No.23 66 of 2022

¶39

APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 2366/2022

¶40

PETITIONER ANNE	XURES
Annexure1	CERTIFIED COPY	OF THE FINAL REPORT IN
	CRIME NO.351/20	05 OF MUSEUM POLICE
	STATION, THIRUV	ANANTHAPURAM
Annexure2	ORIGINAL OF THE	AFFIDAVIT WITH RESPECT TO
	1ST PETITIONER,	DATED 24.02.2022 EXECUTED
	BY THE 2ND RESP	ONDENT/ DEFACTO COMPLAINANT
Annexure3	ORIGINAL OF THE	AFFIDAVIT WITH RESPECT TO
	2ND PETITIONER,	DATED 24.02.2022 EXECUTED
	BY THE 2ND RESP	ONDENT/ DEFACTO COMPLAINANT

Lenin v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lenin 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

Abdul Kareem Sha Vs State of Kerala

Nirshadali Vs State of Kerala

Akbar Vs State of Kerala

Moideen Rashid Vs State of Kerala

Ismail Vs State of Kerala

Thanooja Vs State of Kerala