Allowed

Daji v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC13 Dec 2022Crl.MC/5510/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed a criminal misc. application seeking quashing of criminal proceedings. The petitioners were accused of assaulting security guards under sections 353, 332, 324 IPC. The court found the dispute private and settled, holding that continuation of proceedings served no purpose.

What did the court decide?

Criminal proceedings under crime no. 61/2022 and the First Information Report were quashed against the petitioners.

Daji 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 13TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2022 / 22ND AGRAHAYANA, 1944

¶5

CRL.MC NO. 5510 OF 2022

¶6

CRIME NO.61/2022 OF ATHIRAPPALLI POLICE STATION, THRISSUR PETITIONERS/ACCUSED:

¶7

1DAJI
AGED 46 YEARS
S/O MATHAI, PULIKKALAN (H)
PILLAPARA, ATHIRAPPALLY
THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN – 680724
2SAJI M.V
AGED 44 YEARS
S/O VASU M.A
MOONJELY HOUSE
EZHATTUMUGHAM P.O
ANGAMALY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN – 683577
3BIJU JOSE
AGED 44 YEARS
S/O T.C JOSE
THEKKEKKARA HOUSE
EZHATTUMUGHAM P.O
ANGAMALY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN – 683577
BY ADVS.
K.S.ARUN KUMAR
AMRUTHA P S
VIJAY SANKAR V.H.
SRUTHY UNNIKRISHNAN

¶8

RESPONDENTS/STATE/COMPLAINANTS:

¶9

1STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM,
PIN – 682031
2SURENDRAN M.R
AGED 59 YEARS
S/O RAMACHANDRAN,
MANAPURATH (H), VALIYATHOVALA, ANJUMUKKU
IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN – 685514

¶10

¶11

CRL.MC NO. 5510 OF 2022

¶12

ADDL.3SUNNY CHACKO
AGED 58 YEARS
S/O K.C CHACKO KUZHIKKETUTHAZHE(H),
EZHUKUMVAYEL P.O
IDUKKI DISTRICT -685553
ADDITIONAL R3 IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED
7/10/2022 IN CRL.MA.3/2022.

¶13

BY ADV
ADV AISWARYA E J VETTIKOMPIL
ADV. SREEJA V. - Sr. PP

¶14

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 13.12.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED
THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

CRL.MC NO. 5510 OF 2022

¶16

3

¶17

ORDER

¶18

The petitioners are the accused in Crime No.61/2022 of Athirappalli Police Station which was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 353, 332, 324 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code.

¶19

The prosecution case is that on 25.06.2022 at about 7.45 p.m., the accused persons attacked the 3^rd and 4^th respondents, who

¶20

were security guards of Peringalkuth dam and thereby caused injuries. Annexure 1 is the First Information Report registered and this Crl.M.C. is filed for quashing all further proceedings pursuant to the same.

¶21

Heard Sri.K.S.Arun Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Smt.Sreeja V., learned Public Prosecutor for the State and Smt.Aiswarya E J Vettikompil, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 2 and 3.

¶22

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

¶23

parties has been settled and to substantiate the same, the respondents 2 and 3 have sworn Annexure 2 and Annexure IV

¶24

¶25

CRL.MC NO. 5510 OF 2022

¶26

affidavits respectively. The aforesaid affidavits indicate that, the matter has been settled and the respondents 2 and 3 have no subsisting grievance against the petitioners herein. They also conveyed that they have no objection in quashing the proceedings against the petitioners herein. The learned counsel for the respondents 2 and 3 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 respondents 2 and 3 have reiterated that, they do not have any objection in quashing the proceedings as they have no subsisting grievance against the petitioners herein.

¶27

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

¶28

CRL.MC NO. 5510 OF 2022

¶29

5

¶30

Another [2012(4) KLT 108], this is a fit case in which the powers

¶31

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

¶32

Accordingly, this Crl.M.C. is allowed. Annexure 1 First Information Report in Crime No.61/2022 of Athirappalli Police Station and all further proceedings pursuant thereto as against the petitioners are hereby quashed.

¶33

Sd/-

¶34

ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.
JUDGE

¶35

scs

¶36

CRL.MC NO. 5510 OF 2022

¶37

¶38

APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 5510/2022

¶39

PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure-I`A TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.
61/2022 OF ATHIRAPPALLI POLICE
STATION, THRISSUR DISTRICT.
Annexure2THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT
Annexure -IVAFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE ADDL. 3RD
RESPONDENT IN CRIME NO. 61/2022 OF
ATHIRAPPALLI POLICE STATION, THRISSUR
DISTRICT

Daji v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Daji 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

Subeesh P.U. Vs State of Kerala

M K Soman Vs State of Kerala

Amina Vs State of Kerala

Anirudhan Vs Umadevi

Bijumon Yesudas Vs State of Kerala

Anoop T Paul Vs State of Kerala