Allowed

Padmanabhan.P. v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC26 Sept 2022Crl.MC/3546/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is a criminal miscellaneous petition seeking quashing of criminal proceedings in a case involving under Section 341, 323, 325 read with Section 34 IPC. The petitioners, representing accused Nos. 1 to 3 in Crime No. 121/2022, filed the petition on the ground that the private dispute has been settled. The affidavit of the defacto complainant (2nd respondent) stated that there were no subsisting

What did the court decide?

Crl.M.C. No. 3546 of 2022 is allowed; C.C. No. 380/2022 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Talimparamba as against the petitioners is quashed; Annexure A2 Final Report is quashed.

Padmanabhan.P. 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 26TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2022 / 4TH ASWINA, 1944

¶5

CRL.MC NO. 3546 OF 2022

¶6

CC 121/2022 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS ,TALIPARAMBA
CRIME NO.121/2022 OF TALIPARAMBA POLICE STATION, KANNUR

¶7

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO.1 TO 3:

¶8

1PADMANABHAN.P.
AGED 58 YEARS
S/O.P.K.KUNHIRAMAN NAMBIAR, PERIMKUNNAPPALA HOUSE,
KANIKUNNU, KUPPAM.P.O, TALIPARAMBA AMSOM, KUPPAM DESOM,
KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN – 670502

¶9

2 SIVADASAN.P. AGED 59 YEARS

¶10

S/O.P.K.KUNHIRAMAN NAMBIAR, PERIMKUNNAPPALA HOUSE,
KANIKUNNU, KUPPAM.P.O, TALIPARAM,BA AMSOM, KUPPAM,
DESOM, KANNUR DISTRICT., PIN – 670502

¶11

3DEEPAK.K.V.
AGED 26 YEARS
S/O.SIVADASAN, PERIMKUNNAPPALA HOUSE, KANIKUNNU,
KUPPAM.P.O, TALIPARAMBA AMSOM, KUPPAM DESOM, KANNUR
DISTRICT, PIN – 670502

¶12

BY ADVS.
V.A.SATHEESH
V.T.MADHAVANUNNI

¶13

RESPONDENTS/STATE & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:

¶14

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN – 682031

¶15

2BHASKARAN.P
AGED 66 YEARS
S/O.KRISHNAN, PERINKUNNAPPALA HOUSE, KUPPAM.P.O,
TALIPARAMBA AMSOM, KUPPAM DESOM, TALIPARAMBA TALUK,
KANNUR DISTRICT., PIN – 670502

¶16

¶17

CRL.MC NO. 3546 OF 2022

¶18

BY ADV ANAND V.S
ADV M P PRASHANTH -SR PP

¶19

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 26.09.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED
THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

CRL.MC NO. 3546 OF 2022

¶21

3

¶22

ORDER

¶23

The petitioners are the accused Nos.1 to 3 in Crime No.121/2022 of Talimparamba Police Station which is now pending as C.C. No.380/2022 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Talimparamba. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 341, 323, 325 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code.

¶24

The prosecution case is that on 25.01.2022 at 9 p.m., the petitioners wrongfully restrained the 2^nd respondent/defacto complainant and attacked him thereby causing injuries. Annexure A1 is the First Information Report and Annexure A2 is the Final Report submitted by the Police. This Crl.M.C. is filed for quashing all further proceedings pursuant Annexure A2.

¶25

Heard Sri.V.T. Madhavanunni, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Sri.M.P.Prashanth, learned Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri.Anand V.S. learned counsel appearing for the 2^nd respondent.

¶26

The prayer for quashing the above proceedings is sought for by the petitioners on the ground that, the dispute between the

¶27

CRL.MC NO. 3546 OF 2022

¶28

4

¶29

parties has been settled and to substantiate the same, the defacto complainant has sworn Annexure A4. The aforesaid affidavit indicates that, the matter has been settled and the defacto complainant 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 2^nd respondent/ defacto complainant 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 defacto complainant has reiterated that, he does not have any objection in quashing the proceedings as he has no subsisting grievance against the petitioners herein.

¶30

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 would be served if the proceedings against the petitioners herein were allowed to continue. In such circumstances, the chances of a

¶31

CRL.MC NO. 3546 OF 2022

¶32

5

¶33

successful prosecution are very bleak. Therefore, I am of the view

¶34

that going by the decision in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and

¶35

Another [2012(4) KLT 108], this is a fit case in which the powers of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure can be invoked.

¶36

Accordingly, this Crl.M.C. is allowed. Annexure A2 Final Report in Crime No.121/2022 of Talimparamba Police Station and all further proceedings in C.C. No.380/2022 before the Judicial First

¶37

Class Magistrate Court, Talimparamba as against the petitioners are hereby quashed.

¶38

Sd/- ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A. JUDGE

¶39

scs

¶40

CRL.MC NO. 3546 OF 2022

¶41

¶42

APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 3546/2022

¶43

PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure.A1CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME
NO.121/2022 OF TALIPARAMBA POLICE
STATION
Annexure.A2CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN
CRIME NO.121/2022 OF TALIPARAMBA
POLICE STATION.
Annexure.A3CERTIFIED COPY OF THE MEMO OF EVIDENCE
IN CRIME NO.121/2022 OF TALIPARAMBA
POLICE STATION.
Annexure.A4AFFIDAVIT OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT

Padmanabhan.P. v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Padmanabhan.P. 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

Rohit Mohanan Vs State of Kerala Represented by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala

Vishnu Jeemon Vs the State of Kerala

Sarabi T.P, Vs State of Kerala

P P Gopalan Vs Leela

Shafeek Rahman Vs State of Kerala

Savad A.K Vs State of Kerala