Allowed

Anoop P v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC15 Sept 2022Crl.MC/3959/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam, quashed criminal proceedings against five accused persons for affray and assault. The dispute was found to be private in nature, and a settlement had been reached between the parties, leading the court to conclude that prosecution served no useful purpose.

What did the court decide?

Crl.M.C. No.3959/2022 allowed; the Final Report and all further proceedings in S.C.1114/2017 quashed against the petitioners.

Anoop 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

THURSDAY, THE 15^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2022 / 24TH BHADRA, 1944

¶5

CRL.MC NO. 3959 OF 2022

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENTSC 1114/2017 OF PRINCIPAL SUB COURT COURT, THRISSUR

¶7

PETITIONER/ACCUSED NOS 1 TO 5:

¶8

1 ANOOP P, AGED 26 YEARS, S/O SREEKUMAR, KADAVATH HOUSE, POOTHARAKKAL (PO), CHOVVUR, THRISSUR,., PIN - 680561

¶9

2 ABHISHEK, AGED 24 YEARS S/O RADHAKRISHNAN, PAREKKOTTIL (H), PURANATTUKARA PO), VILLUPARA LANE, ADATT, THRISSUR, PIN - 680551

¶10

3 AKHIL, AGED 24 YEARS,S/O SUNI KUMAR, KADHALIKKATTU (H), TENS VIDHYA NAGAR, VELLANIKKARA, THRISSUR,, PIN - 680654

¶11

4 ARUNDAS, AGED 26 YEARS, S/O ANANDHAN, KALAPPURAKKAL (H), KALA NAGAR, KATTOOR, THRISSUR., PIN - 680702

¶12

5 DEEPAK KRISHNAN, AGED 24 YEARS, S/O KRISHNAN, MURIYATH (H), KUMARANALLOOR, WADAKKANCHERRY, THRISSUR., PIN - 680590

¶13

BY ADV VIVEK.P.K

¶14

¶15

Crl.M.C No.3959 of 2022

¶16

RESPONDENT/STATE AND DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:

¶17

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

¶18

2 KRISHNAPRASAD, AGED 30 YEARSS,S/O MURALEEDHARAN, CHATHRATHIL (H), MURIYADU P.O., MUKUNDAPURAM, THRISSUR., PIN - 680683

¶19

BY ADVS. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MANU K. MURALI

¶20

adv sreeja v -sr pp

¶21

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15.09.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

¶23

Crl.M.C No.3959 of 2022

¶24

O R D E R

¶25

The petitioners are the accused Nos. 1 to 5 in Crime No.420/2017 of Thrissur Town Police Station which is now pending as S.C 1114/2017 on the file of the Principal Sub Judge, Thrissur. The offences alleged against the petitioners are punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 323, 324, 308 read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code.

¶26

2 . The prosecution case is that, on 17.03.2017 at 05.00 p.m, the petitioners attacked the 2 nd respondent by using a wooden stick and soda bottles. Annexure-A1 is the final report submitted by the Police. This Crl.MC is filed for quashing all further proceedings pursuant to Annexure-A1.

¶27

3 . Heard Sri. Vivek P.K, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Smt.Sreeja V, the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and Sri. Manu K Murali, the learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent.

¶28

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

¶29

¶30

Crl.M.C No.3959 of 2022

¶31

between the parties has been settled and to substantiate the same, the injured person has sworn Annexure-A2 affidavit. The aforesaid affidavit indicates that, the matter has been settled and

¶32

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.

¶33

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

¶34

¶35

Crl.M.C No.3959 of 2022

¶36

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.

¶37

The learned Public Prosecutor pointed out that, the accused persons are having criminal antecedents. However, it is pointed out that, the offences involved in those cases are not very serious in nature and it was also an admitted case that after 2015, there are no cases against the petitioners. Similarly, eventhough one of the offence alleged against the petitioners are under Section 308 of Indian Penal Code in this case, it is discernible from the records that no serious injuries are sustained by the defacato complainant. In such circumstances, taking note of the settlement and the nature of allegations against the petitioners, I am of the view that, the powers of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C can be invoked and to quash the proceedings against the petitioners.

¶38

Accordingly, this Crl.M.C. is allowed. Annexure-A1 final report in Crime No.420/2017 of Thrissur Town Police Station and all further proceedings in S.C.No.1114/2017 pending on the file of the

¶39

¶40

Crl.M.C No.3959 of 2022

¶41

Principal Sub Judge, Thrissur as against the petitioners are hereby

quashed.

Sd/-

ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A

JUDGE

rpk

Crl.M.C No.3959 of 2022

¶49

APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 3959/2022

¶50

PETITIONER ANNEXURES

¶51

Annexure A1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT AND MEMO OF EVIDENCE IN CRIME NO. 420 OF 2017 OF THRISSUR TOWN POLICE STATION. Annexure A2 THE AFFIDAVIT SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT

Anoop P v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anoop 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

Ebin Varghese Vs State of Kerala

Sajith George Vs V.K. Praveen Kumar

Naisam Vs the Station House Officer

Shanavas K.A Vs State of Kerala

Shaji Thomas Vs State of Kerala

Sadanandan Vs State of Kerala