Allowed

Vishal Pavithran v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC23 Jun 2022Crl.MC/904/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order quashed criminal proceedings under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 308 IPC against accused students. The Court applied Supreme Court principles regarding private disputes found to be settled, holding that quashing serves the ends of justice and prevents futile prosecution. The injury was not serious and accused had no criminal antecedents.

What did the court decide?

Crl.M.C. allowed; final report and all further proceedings in S.C.No.905 of 2014 against petitioners quashed.

Vishal Pavithran Vs State of Kerala — Cheating and Forgery | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

Crl.M.C.No.904/2022

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.

¶6

THURSDAY, THE 23^RD DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 2ND ASHADHA, 1944

¶7

CRL.MC NO. 904 OF 2022

¶8

PETITIONER:

¶9

1 VISHAL PAVITHRAN, AGED 31 YEARS, SON OF PAVITHRAN, KARUVATH HOUSE, GEETHAM, ERUVATTY, PINARAYI, KANNUR DISTRICT

¶10

KANNUR, PIN – 670 741.

¶11

2 ADARSH, AGED 27 YEARS,

¶12

O.RAVEENDRAN, ADARSH BHAVAN, SASTHAMKOTTAM, VARAM, KANNUR DISTRICT

¶13

KANNUR, PIN – 670 331.

¶14

3 SANJAYAN.T.P, AGED 27 YEARS,

¶15

O.GANGADHARAN, PUTHIYAKANDAN HOUSE, NELLIKKUNNU, BELLA, KANHANGAD, KASARAGOD DISTRICT, PIN – 671 123.

¶16

4 AKHIL.P.M., AGED 28 YEARS,

¶17

O.ARAVINDAKSHAN, PUTHANMADATHIL HOUSE, CHERIKKAL, PINARAYI, KANNUR DISTRCT, PIN – 670 741.

¶18

5 SIJIN.N.K., AGED 28 YEARS, S/O.RAMESAN, SNEHADEEPAM HOUSE, ANDALOOR, DHARMADAM, KANNUR DISTRICT, KANNUR, PIN – 670 661.

¶19

6 SHYAMJITH.M., AGED 27 YEARS, O.P.V.HAREENDRAN, MAVILA HOUSE, KEEZHUR AMSAM, PAYANCHERI, IRITTY, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN – 670 703.

¶20

Crl.M.C.No.904/2022

¶21

¶22

7 ARJUN.K.K., AGED 27 YEARS, O.PADMANABHAN, KANNANGUZHIYIL HOUSE, KARIMBANAPALAM, VADAKARA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN – 673 101.

¶23

BY ADV P.S.ANISHAD

¶24

RESPONDENTS:

¶25

1 STATE OF KERALA, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. ERNAKULAM, PIN – 682 031.

¶26

2 ABDUL VAJID C.K., AGED 26 YEARS, S/O.MUHAMMED KUNJI, CHAMBADANKANDI HOUSE, NAYATTUPARA (PO), PATTANNUR, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN-670 602.

¶27

BY ADV M.B.SHYNI

¶28

SRI.C.S HRITHWIK SR.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶29

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23.06.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

Crl.M.C.No.904/2022

O R D E R

Petitioners are the accused Nos.1 to 7 in Crime No.89 of 2014 of Dharmadam Police Station, which is now pending as S.C.No.905 of 2014 before the Principal Assistant Sessions Court, Thalassery. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 323, 324, 308 read with Section 149 IPC.

¶34

The prosecution case is that on 04.02.2014 at 4.10 pm the accused who are students of Palayad University Campus have assaulted the 2^nd respondent who was also a student in the very same college. Annexure-A1 is the final report submitted in this case. This Crl.M.C. is filed for quashing all further proceedings pursuant to Anneuxre-A1.

¶35

Heard Sri.P.N.Anishad, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri.C.S.Hrithwik, learned Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri.Abdul Vajid C.K, learned counsel for the 2^nd respondent.

¶36

Prayer for quashing the proceedings is sought mainly on the ground that the dispute between the parties has been settled. Annexure-2 affidavit sworn by the 2^nd respondent/de facto

¶37

Crl.M.C.No.904/2022 4

¶38

complainant is filed along with this Crl.M.C. to substantiate the settlement. In the said affidavit, the 2^nd 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 2^nd 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.

¶39

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.

¶40

It is true that one of the offences alleged is under Section 308 IPC. However, it is seen from the records that the petitioners were students at the relevant time and the incident occurred due to political differences between them. Injuries

¶41

Crl.M.C.No.904/2022

¶42

¶43

sustained by the de facto complainant are not very serious in nature and no criminal antecedents of any of the accused persons were also brought to my notice. In such circumstances, I am inclined to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C., despite the fact that one of the offences is under Section 308 IPC.

¶44

In the result, this Crl.M.C. is allowed, and Annexure-1 final report submitted in Crime No.89 of 2014 of Dharmadam Police Station and all further proceedings in S.C.No.905 of 2014 on the file of the Principal Assistant Sessions Court, Thalassery, against the petitioners are hereby quashed.

¶45

Sd/-

¶46

ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A. JUDGE

DG/24.6.22

Crl.M.C.No.904/2022

APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 904/2022

¶51

PETITIONER ANNEXURES

¶52

Annexure1 A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE CHARGE SHEET IN S.C. NO.905/2014 OF PRINCIPAL ASSISTANT SESSIONS COURT THALLASSERY, KANNUR DISTRICT (CRIME NO. 89/2014 OF DHARMADAM POLICE STATION, KANNUR DISTRICT) Annexure2 A TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT, DATED 18/01/2022

Vishal Pavithran v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vishal Pavithran 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

Rajithkumar R. Vs State of Kerala

Vineesh Vs State of Kerala

Vineeth Vs State of Kerala

Jermaine Joseph Peter Vs State of Kerala

Abu Soofiyan Vs State of Kerala

Suneer Vs State of Kerala