Allowed

Mani v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC23 Aug 2022Crl.MC/3905/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a criminal miscellaneous petition seeking quashing of criminal proceedings. Noting that the dispute was private in nature and the complainant had settled the matter without subsisting grievance, the court exercised its powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the first information report and all further proceedings.

What did the court decide?

The Crl.M.C. was allowed; the Final Report (Annexure II) and all further proceedings under C.C. No.465/2021 were quashed.

Mani 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

TUESDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF AUGUST 2022 / 1ST BHADRA, 1944

¶5

CRL.MC NO. 3905 OF 2022

¶6

CRIME NO.586/2021 OF MUVATTUPUZHA POLICE STATION

¶7

C.C. NO.465/2021 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT,

¶8

MUVATTUPUZHA

¶9

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED:

¶10

1MANI

¶11

AGED 54 YEARS
S/O GOPALAN NAIR, MEENAMKOTTAYIL, MANARY P.O,
MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN – 686673

¶12

2RAHUL M
AGED 26 YEARS
S/O MANI, MEENAMKOTTAYOIL, MANARY P.O,
MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM, PIN – 686673

¶13

BY ADVS.
K.S.ARUN KUMAR
VIJAY SANKAR V.H.

¶14

RESPONDENTS/STATE/COMPLAINANT:

¶15

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

¶16

2REGIMON KG
AGED 43 YEARS
S/O GOPINATHAN, KANDOKOYIKKAL VEETIL,
MANARI KARA, MANARY P.O, MUVATTUPUZHA,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN – 686673

¶17

BY ADV
ADV ARJUN KUMAR K.S.
ADV M.P. PRASHANTH – PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶18

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
23.08.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

CRL.MC NO. 3905 OF 2022

¶20

2

¶21

ORDER

¶22

The petitioners are the accused in Crime No.586/2021 of Muvattupuzha Police Station which is now pending as C.C. No.465/2021 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Muvattupuzha. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 341, 324 and 294(b) read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code.

¶23

The prosecution case is that, on 07.03.2021 at about 3.00 p.m., the petitioner trespassed into the car porch of the defacto complainant who is the 2^nd respondent herein, uttered obscene words and attacked him with an iron rod. Annexure I is the First Information Report and Annexure II is the Final Report submitted by the Police. This Crl.M.C. is filed for quashing all further proceedings pursuant to Annexure II.

¶24

Heard Sri.K.S.Arun Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Sri.M.P. Prashanth, learned Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri.Arjun Kumar K.S., learned counsel appearing for the 2^nd respondent.

¶25

The prayer for quashing the above proceedings is sought

¶26

CRL.MC NO. 3905 OF 2022

¶27

3

¶28

for by the petitioners on the ground that, the dispute between the parties has been settled and to substantiate the same, the defacto complainant has sworn Annexure III. 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.

¶29

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

¶30

¶31

CRL.MC NO. 3905 OF 2022

¶32

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

¶33

Accordingly, this Crl.M.C. is allowed. Annexure II Final Report in Crime No.586/2021 of Muvattupuzha Police Station and all further proceedings in C.C.No.465/2021 pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Muvattupuzha as against the petitioners are hereby quashed.

¶34

Sd/-

¶35

ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A. JUDGE

¶36

scs

¶37

CRL.MC NO. 3905 OF 2022

¶38

¶39

APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 3905/2022

¶40

PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure1ANNEXURE-I FIR IN CRIME NO.586/2021 OF
MUVATTUPUZHA POLICE STATION
Annexure2CERTIFIED COPY OF FINAL REPORT IN
CRIME NO.586/2021 OF MUVATTUPUZHA
POLICE STATION
Annexure3THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE RESPONDENT
NO.2

Mani v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mani 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

Vechuchira Madhu, Vs C.F.Robert

Dr.Manju.K.Nair Vs the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways

Najumudeen Vs State of Kerala

Sujeebu Vs State of Kerala

Prathyush K.K Vs Muhammed Rifayath.O

Anees Muhammed Ashraf Vs State of Kerala