High Court of Kerala allowed Criminal Misc. Case 2901/22 to quash C.C. No. 705/2012. The dispute was purely private and settled via affidavit by the victim. Applying principles in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, the Court held quashing served no purpose.
Quashed C.C. No. 705/2012 and Final Report of Crime No. 430 of 2012.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Crl.M.C.No.2901/22
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.
TUESDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF JULY 2022 / 21ST ASHADHA, 1944
CRL.MC NO. 2901 OF 2022
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC 705/2012 OF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -II, ATTINGAL
PETITIONERS/ACCUSED IN C.C.NO.705/2012:
1 SHABIN, AGED 29 YEARS, RESIDING AT SHABIN MANZIL, MANALIMUKKU, MANANAKK, NELLANADU VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-695 102.
2 SHINU, AGED 30 YEARS, S/O.RATHEESH, AGED 30 YEARS, RESIDING AT KARTHIKA BHAVAN, NEAR NGO QUARTERS, NEDUMANAGAD VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-695 541.
3 SARATH, AGED 30 YEARS, S/O.SHYLESWARAN, AGED 30 YEARS, RESIDING AT SREESHILAM, KALLUPARAMP, NEDUMANAGAD VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 541.
4 KIRAN, AGED 31 YEARS, S/O.SUKUMARAN NAIR, AGED 31 YEARS, RESIDING AT PUNNAMON VEEDU, NEAR UP SCHOOL KUNNUVARAM, KUNNUVARAM, MELATTINGAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 044.
5 BALU, AGED 32 YEARS,
Crl.M.C.No.2901/22
2
S/O.BABU, AGED 32 YEARS, SUGANTHI HOUSE, OORUPOYKA, AVANAVANCHERY, ATTINGAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN695 103.
6 SANTHOSH, AGED 30 YEARS, S/O.VIJAYAN, AGED 30 YEARS RESIDING AT VELIKKAKAM VEEDU, MUDAPURAM, CHIRAYINKEEZHU, THIRUVANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 101.
BY ADV NIDHIN RAJ VETTIKKADAN
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN – 682 031.
2 AKHIL, AGED 29 YEARS, S/O.ASHOK KUMAR, AGED 29 YEARS, RESIDING AT CHANDRA BHAVAN, NEAR KARUNYA VISHRANTHI BHAVAN, KATTELA, SREEKARYAM, CHERUVAYKKAL VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,PIN-695 011.
BY ADVS. JISHI.T MIDHUN S. KARUN SMT.SEENA C – PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
12.07.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.M.C.No.2901/22
3
O R D E R
The petitioners are the accused in Crime No.430 of 2012 of Kazhakkuttam Police Station, which is now pending as C.C.No.705 of 2012 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Attingal. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 323, 324, 427, 506(ii) read with Section 34 of IPC.
Crl.M.C.No.2901/22
4
objection to quash the proceedings against the petitioners herein. The learned counsel appearing for the 2nd 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.
In the result, this Crl.M.C. is allowed, and Annexure-A2 final report submitted in Crime No.430 of 2012 of Kazhakkuttam Police Station and all further proceedings in C.C.No.705 of 2012 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Attingal, against the petitioners are hereby quashed.
Sd/-
ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A. JUDGE
DG/12.7.22
Crl.M.C.No.2901/22
5
APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 2901/2022
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure1 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR NO. 430/2012 DATED 29/04/2012 FILED BY THE KAZHAKKUTAM POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM Annexure2 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT DATED 03.12.2012 FILED BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT II, ATTINGAL BY THE KAZHAKKUTAM POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM Annexure A3 NOTARIZED AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE DEFACTO COMPLAINANT
2 issues framed by the court
Whether criminal proceedings can be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. upon settlement of a purely private dispute.
Whether the court should allow the discharge petition despite pending final report.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and AnotherExplained¶7
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Another [(2012) 10 SCC 303] · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
SHABIN
SHINU
SARATH
KIRAN
BALU
AKHIL
ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.
Parties & counsel
