Allowed

Dharman K v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC22 Dec 2022Crl.MC/8891/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala quashed criminal proceedings under Section 308 IPC against the petitioner. The court held that since the dispute was private in nature and the parties had settled the matter, continuing the prosecution served no purpose. Relying on Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, the court invoked its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash further proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of all further proceedings pursuant to the Final Report in Crime No.45/2018 and in S.C.No.210/2018 pending in the Assistant Sessions Court, Tirur, against the petitioner.

Dharman K 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

THURSDAY, THE 22^ND DAY OF DECEMBER 2022 / 1ST POUSHA, 1944

¶5

CRL.MC NO. 8891 OF 2022

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT SC 210/2018 OF SUB COURT, TIRUR

¶7

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

¶8

DHARMAN K AGED 49 YEARS S/O. GOPALAN (LATE), KUZHIKKATTIL HOUSE, ARIYALLOOR P.O., BEACH ROAD, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT PIN - 676312 BY ADV K.RAKESH

¶9

RESPONDENT/STATE AND DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:

¶10

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

¶11

2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER PARAPPANANGADI POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT PIN - 676303 3 APPUKUTTAN V.T. S/O. UNEERI, AGED 60 YEARS, VALAYANAD THARAYIL HOUSE, ARIYALLOOR, PARAPPANANGADI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT PIN - 676312 BY ADVS. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR K.S.PRAVEEN

¶12

ADV SREEJA V -SR PP

¶13

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22.12.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

¶15

Crl.M.C No .8891 of 2022

¶16

O R D E R

¶17

The petitioner is the accused in Crime No.45/2018 of Parappanangadi Police Station which is now pending as S.C.No.210/2018 on the files of Assistant Sessions Court, Tirur. The offence alleged against the petitioner is under Section 308 of Indian Penal Code. The 3 rd respondent is the defacto complainant, Annexure A is the Final Report submitted by the Police and this Crl.M.C if filed for quashing all further proceedings pursuant to Annexure-A.

¶18

2 . Heard Sri. K.Rakesh, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Smt.Sreeja V, the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and Sri. K.S Praveen, the learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent.

¶19

3 . The prayer for quashing the above proceedings is sought for by the petitioner on the ground that, the dispute between the parties has been settled and to substantiate the same, the defacto complainant/3 rd respondent has sworn Annexure-B affidavit. The aforesaid affidavit indicates that, the matter has been settled and the 3rd respondent has no subsisting grievance against the petitioner herein. He also conveyed that he

¶20

¶21

Crl.M.C No .8891 of 2022

¶22

has no objection in quashing the proceedings against the petitioner herein. The learned counsel for the 3rd

¶23

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 3rd respondent has reiterated that, he does not have any objection in quashing the proceedings as he has no subsisting grievance against the petitioner herein.

¶24

4 . 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 petitioner 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

¶25

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.

¶26

¶27

Crl.M.C No .8891 of 2022

¶28

It is true that, the offence is under Section 308 of Indian Penal Code. However, it is seen that no serious injuries were sustained by the defacto complainant. Apart from the above, the learned Public Prosecutor upon instructions submitted that, the petitioner was earlier involved in another crime in the year 2016 for the offences punishable under Section 341, 323 and 354 of Indian Penal Code. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner points out that, the aforesaid crime is already quashed by this Court on the basis of settlement. In such circumstances, taking note of the settlement arrived between the parties, I deem it appropriate to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C to quash the proceedings against the petitioner.

¶29

Accordingly, this Crl.M.C. is allowed. All further proceedings pursuant to Annexure-A, Final Report in Crime No.45/2018 of Parappanangadi Police Station and all further proceedings in S C No.210/2018 which is now pending before the Assistant Sessions Court, Tirur against the petitioner are hereby quashed.

Sd/-

ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A

JUDGE

rpk

Crl.M.C No .8891 of 2022

¶36

APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 8891/2022

¶37

PETITIONER ANNEXURES

¶38

Annexure A A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO.45/2018 OF THE PARAPPANANGADI POLICE STATION Annexure B AFFIDAVIT EXECUTED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT ON 11-11-2022

Dharman K v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dharman K 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

Suresh Babu @ Sundaran Binu Vs State of Kerala

Agasthyanath, Vs Principal Secretary

Rmp Info Tec Pvt.Ltd. Company Vs State of Kerala

Dr. Anu.v Vs State of Kerala

Madhukumar Vs the State Police Chief

Udhayakumar, Vs State of Kerala