Allowed

Melbin Joseph v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC19 Sept 2022Crl.MC/5214/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal miscellaneous case, the Kerala High Court quashed criminal proceedings against five accused students. The court held that the dispute was private in nature and settled by the complainant under Annexure-A2, making further prosecution purposes futile. Relying on Gian Singh, the court invoked Section 482 CrPC to quash proceedings in CC 952/2018.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of all further proceedings in C.C. No.952/2018 and the final report in Crime No.2188/2017 against the petitioners.

Melbin Joseph Vs State of Kerala — Criminal Trial and Appeal | 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 19^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2022 / 28TH BHADRA, 1944

¶5

CRL.MC NO. 5214 OF 2022

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENTCC 952/2018 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS - I, ETTUMANUR

¶7

PETITIONER/ACCUSED 1 TO 5:

¶8

1 MELBIN JOSEPH AGED 25 YEARS S/O JOSEPH, PAALAKUZHIPPIL HOUSE, PADINJATTUMBHAGAM KARA, KATTATHI BHAGAM, ATHIRAMPUZHA VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM TALUK, KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686562

¶9

2 BIBIN SEBASTIAN AGED 25 YEARS S/O SEBASTIAN, PAALAKUZHIPPIL HOUSE, PADINJATTUMBHAGAM KARA, KATTATHI BHAGAM, ATHIRAMPUZHA VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM TALUK, KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686562

¶10

3 ANANDHU SIVAKUMAR AGED 26 YEARS S/O SIVAKUMAR, MUNDUVELIL HOUSE, PEROOR KARA, KANDANCHIRA BHAGAM,PEROOR VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM TALUK, KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686637

¶11

4 RAHUL RAJENDRAN AGED 27 YEARS S/O RAJEDRAN,

¶12

¶13

Crl.M.C No.5214 of 2022

¶14

AIKKATTUPARAMBIL HOUSE, MUTTAPALLI KARA, ERUMELI SOUTH BHAGAM,ERUMELI VILLAGE, KANJIRAPILLY TALUK, KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686510 5 SACHIN SAJI AGED 25 YEARS S/O SAJI GEORGE, MULLAMKAYIL HOUSE, PADINJATTUMBHAGAM KARA, KATTATHI BHAGAM, ATHIRAMPUZHA VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM TALUK, KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686562 BY ADVS. JITHIN BOSE VIDHYA KISHAN

¶15

RESPONDENTS/STATE, COMPLAINANT AND DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:

¶16

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031 2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER OF ETTUMANOOR POLICE STATION KOTTAYAM TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT,, PIN - 686631 3 P.S SUMESH AGED 32 YEARS S/O SOMARAJAN, PADINJAREPEEDIKAYIL HOUSE, KOCHALUMOODU BHAGAM, THRIKKOTHAMANGALAM KARA, VAKATHANAM VILLAGE, CHANGANASERRY TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686011 BY ADV K.R.MONISHA

¶17

ADV C S HRITHWIK-SR PP

¶18

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON

¶19

19.09.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

¶21

Crl.M.C No.5214 of 2022

¶22

O R D E R

¶23

The petitioners are the accused Nos. 1 to 5 in Crime No.2188/2017 of Ettumanoor Police Station which is now pending as C.C 952/2018 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Ettumanoor. The offences alleged against the petitioners are punishable under Sections 143, 144, 147, 148, 451, 506(ii), 427 read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code.

¶24

2 . The prosecution case is that, on on 22.12.2021, at about 05.00 p.m, the petitioners/accused Nos. 1 to 5 who were students of Ettumanoorappan College, formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and threatened the 3 rd respondent. It is also alleged that they caused some damages to the motor vehicles parked thereon. Annexure-A1 is the FIR and Annexure-A2 is the final report submitted by the Police. This Crl.MC is filed for quashing all further proceedings pursuant to Annexure-A2.

¶25

3 . Heard Sri. Jithin Bose, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Sri. C.S Hrithwik, the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and Smt. K.R Monisha, the learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent.

¶26

¶27

Crl.M.C No.5214 of 2022

¶28

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 defacto complainant has sworn Annexure-A3 affidavit. 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 3rd 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

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

¶30

¶31

Crl.M.C No.5214 of 2022

¶32

successful prosecution are very bleak. Therefore, I am of the view that going by the decision in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and

¶33

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.

¶34

Accordingly, this Crl.M.C. is allowed. Annexure-A2 final report in Crime No.2188/2017 of Ettumanoor Police Station and all further proceedings in C.C.No.952/2018 pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-1, Ettumanoor as against the petitioners are hereby quashed.

Sd/-

ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A

JUDGE

rpk

Crl.M.C No.5214 of 2022

¶41

APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 5214/2022

¶42

PETITIONER ANNEXURES

¶43

Annexure A1 CERTIFIED COPY OF FIRST INFORMATION REPORT IN CRIME NO. 2188 OF 2017 OF THE ETTUMANOOR POLICE STATION, KOTTAYAM ALONG WITH STATEMENT OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT Annexure A2 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE CHARGE SHEET IN C.C. NO. 952 OF 2018 ON THE FILE OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-I, ETTUMANOOR, KOTTAYAM. Annexure A3 AFFIDAVIT SWORN TO BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 31.03.2022 .

Melbin Joseph v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Melbin Joseph 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

M/S. Shwas Homes Pvt. Ltd., Vs State of Kerala

Raju P.K. Vs State of Kerala

Ibrahim.K.L Vs the State of Kerala Represented by Public Proseutor

Jishnu Vs State of Kerala

M.Nazeer Vs Ameena.E.P

Ravi Vs State of Kerala