The Kerala High Court quashed the FIR and criminal proceedings against a petitioner accused of damaging a bus. The court held that the dispute was purely private and settled, invoking principles from Gian Singh v. State of Punjab.
FIR under Crime No.1671 of 2017 and all further proceedings in C.C.No.701 of 2018 against the petitioner are quashed.
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.5311/22 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A. TUESDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2022 / 26TH ASWINA, 1944 CRL.MC NO. 5311 OF 2022
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENTCC 701/2018 OF JMFC, KALAMASSERY
(TEMPORARY)
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
ANILKUMAR @ THAMPI, AGED 42 YEARS, VALIYAVEETIL HOUSE, KARUVELIPADY, THOPPUMPADY, ERNAKULAM, PIN – 682 005.
BY ADVS. SAM ISAAC POTHIYIL S.SURAJA TINU JOHNSON VISHNU DAS SRUTHI DAS JISHMA K.S OSHIN MENDEZ MARIA NEETHU T.J ANJITHA ANIL KUMAR ABEY GEORGE ANAGHA A.S.
RESPONDENT/STATE & DE FACTO COMPLAINANT:
Crl.M.C.No.5311/22
2
KALAMASSERY POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN – 682 033.
3 HARID, AGED 45 YEARS, S/O.ABDUL KHADER, VELLARKODATH HOUSE, KUTTIKATTUKARA, KADUNGALLOOR, ERNAKULAM, PIN – 683 110.
HARISH V.S.
SRI.C.S.HRITHWIK-SR.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18.10.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.M.C.No.5311/22
3
O R D E R
Petitioner is the sole accused in Crime No.1671 of 2017 of Kalamassery Police Station, which is now pending as C.C.No.701 of 2018 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kalamassery. The offence alleged against the petitioner is under Section 427 IPC and under Section 118(e) of the Kerala Police Act.
Crl.M.C.No.5311/22 4
on the ground that the dispute between the parties has been settled. Annexure-A3 affidavit sworn by the 3rd respondent/de facto complainant is filed along with this Crl.M.C. to substantiate the settlement. In the said affidavit, the 3rd respondent/de facto complainant had specifically acknowledged the aforesaid settlement and also conveyed the no-objection to quash the proceedings against the petitioners herein. The learned counsel appearing for the 3rd 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.
Crl.M.C.No.5311/22
5
In the result, this Crl.M.C. is allowed, and Annexure-A1 FIR submitted in Crime No.1671 of 2017 of Kalamassery Police Station and all further proceedings in C.C.No.701 of 2018 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kalamassery, against the petitioner are hereby quashed.
Sd/- ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A. JUDGE
DG/19.10.22
Crl.M.C.No.5311/22
6
APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 5311/2022
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
| Annexure A1 | THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR IN 1671/2017 OF KALAMASSERRY POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, ALONG WITH THE FIRST INFORMATION STATEMENT. |
|---|---|
| Annexure A2 | THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN 1671/2017 OF KALAMASSERRY POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, NOW PENDING ON THE FILES OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, KALAMASSERY AS CC NO.701/2018. |
| Annexure A3 | THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN TO BY THE DEFACTO COMPLAINANT /3RD RESPONDENT DATED 11.07.2022. |
3 issues framed by the court
Whether criminal proceedings under Section 427 IPC for damage to property are maintainable after a settlement between the private parties.
Whether the dispute over the damage to a bus is purely private in nature warranting quashal of proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Whether the affidavit of the complainant confirming settlement justifies quashing of FIR and further proceedings.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and AnotherApplied¶29
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Another [(2012) 10 SCC 303] · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Anilkumar @ Thampi
State of Kerala
Harid
Ziyad Rahman A.A.
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
