Allowed

Arun. S v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC15 Dec 2022Crl.MC/7235/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court at Ernakulam held that proceedings under Cr.P.C. No.62/2022 and related offences under IPC and Arms Act should be quashed. The dispute was private, settled between parties, and no serious injuries were sustained by victims, invoking Section 482 Cr.P.C. principles from Gian Singh.

What did the court decide?

Crl.M.C. No.7235/2022 allowed; final report and all further proceedings in C.P. No.62/2022 quashed.

Arun. S Vs the 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 DECEMBER 2022/24TH AGRAHAYANA, 1944

¶5

CRL.MC NO. 7235 OF 2022

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENTCP 62/2022 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-II, KAYAMKULAM

¶7

PETITIONER/S:

¶8

1 ARUN. S AGED 33 YEARS S/O BABU, ARUN NIVAS, PRAYAR NORTH, PUTHUPPALLY , KAYAMKULAM, ALAPPUZHA , PIN - 690547 2 RISHI V. NATH @ ALLU, AGED 26 YEARS S/O. VIDYADHARAN, VISHAL BHAVANAM, PRAYAR NORTH, PUTHUPALLY, KAYAMKULAM,ALAPPUZHA , PIN - 692547 3 SUNIL @ KOCHUKANNAN, AGED 32 YEARS S/O. SARASAN, PRAYAR KOCHAYYATHU HOUSE, PRAYAR NORTH , PUTHUPALLY, KAYAMKULAM, ALAPPUZHA , PIN - 690547 4 LIBU, AGED 32 YEARS S/O. BABU, KUZHITHARA KIZHAKKATHIL HOUSE, PRAYAR NORTH , PUTHUPALLY, KAYAMKULAM, ALAPPUZHA

¶9

, PIN - 690547 BY ADV S.VAIDYANATHAN

¶10

RESPONDENT/S:

¶11

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

¶12

Crl.M.C.No.7235/2022

¶13

: 2 :

¶14

2 SHINTO R, AGED 37 YEARS S/O. RAJAN, NEDUVELIL PUTHAN VEEDU, PRAYAR NORTH, KAYAMKULAM, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN - 690547 ADDL.3 SIROSH S S/O LATE SURENDRAN ,KOTTINATTU HOUSE ,PRAYAR SOUTH ,CLAPPANA, KOLLAM (IMPLEADED AS ADDITIONAL R3 AS PER ORDER DATED 15.12.2022 IN CRL.M.A.NO.2/2022) BY ADVS. V.KRISHNA KUMAR ADV M P PRASHANTH - PP

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15.12.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

Crl.M.C.No.7235/2022

: 3 :

ORDER

Dated this the 15^th day of December, 2022

¶20

The petitioners are the accused in crime No.846/2017 of Kayamkulam Police Station, which is now pending as C.P. No.62/2022 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Kayamkulam. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 324, 308, 427 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and also under Section 27 of the Arms Act.

¶21

Annexure-A is the F.I.R. and Annexure-C is the final report submitted by the Police. This Crl.M.C. is filed for quashing all further proceedings pursuant to Annexure-C final report.

¶22

Heard Sri. Vaidyanathan, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Sri. M.P. Prasanth, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri. V. Krishnakumar, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. and 3, who are the victims of the crime.

¶23

Crl.M.C.No.7235/2022

¶24

: 4 :

¶25

The prayer for quashing the proceedings is sought mainly on the ground that the dispute between the parties has been settled. Annexures-D and E affidavits sworn by respondent Nos. and 3 are filed along with this Crl.M.C. to substantiate the settlement. In the said affidavits, respondent Nos.2 and 3 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 respondent Nos.2 and 3 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.

¶26

The allegations would reveal that the dispute is purely private in nature. In such circumstances, by applying the principles laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Another [(2012) 10 SCC 303] , proceedings can be quashed by invoking the powers of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. This is particularly because, on account of the settlement, no fruitful purpose would be served by allowing the prosecution to continue.

¶27

Crl.M.C.No.7235/2022

¶28

: 5 :

¶29

It is true that one of the offence is under Section 308 of the Indian Penal Code. However, on perusal of the records, it is seen that no serious injuries were sustained by the victims. No criminal antecedents of any of the petitioners were also brought to my notice. In such circumstances, I deem it appropriate to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and to quash the proceedings.

¶30

In the result, this Crl.M.C. is allowed and Annexure-C final report submitted in crime No.846/2017 of Kayamkulam Police Station and all further proceedings in C.P. No.62/2022 on the files

¶31

of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Kayamkulam, against the petitioners are hereby quashed.

¶32

Sd/ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A. JUDGE

ncd

Crl.M.C.No.7235/2022

: 6 :

APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 7235/2022

¶37

PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO. 0846 /2017 DATED 17/12/2020 Annexure B CERTIFIED COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 16/11/2017 Annexure C CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT DT. 08/03/2018 Annexure D AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT Annexure5 AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE CW 2

Arun. S v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arun. S v. the 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

Shabimol Vs State of Kerala

Swapna.T.D Vs State of Kerala

K. Vidyadharan, Vs State Police Chief

Aswanth Baji, Vs State of Kerala

Ambady Vs State of Kerala

Shihab T P Vs Sreelakshmi R