Allowed

Siju U v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC22 Mar 2023Crl.MC/1232/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala quashed criminal proceedings against five accused persons in Crime No.83/2023. Relying on settled jurisprudence regarding settlement of disputes, the Court held that since the matter was amicably settled between the parties and no public interest was implicated, continuing the prosecution was futile. The appeal was allowed.

What did the court decide?

All proceedings against the petitioners in Crime No.83/2023 of Palakkad Cusba Police Station were quashed.

Siju U Vs State of Kerala — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF MARCH 2023 / 1ST CHAITHRA, 1945

¶5

CRL.MC NO. 1232 OF 2023

¶6

IN CRIME NO.83 OF 2023 OF PALAKKAD CUSBA POLICE STATION

¶7

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 TO 5:

¶8

1SIJU U
AGED 40 YEARS
S/O. UNNIKRISHNAN,
BUILDING NO.12 68, ALAMKODU,
THIRUVALATHUR P O, KODUMBU,
KOTAMBU, PALAKKAD, PIN – 678551

¶9

2VINEETH D
AGED 28 YEARS
S/O DHANARAJ R, VV NIVAS HOUSE,
AMBALAPARAMBU, KATAMBU,
PALAKKAD, PIN – 678551

¶10

3SUNIL S
AGED 33 YEARS
CHETTINTEKKAD HOUSE,
KOTTEKKAD P O, MALAMBUZHA,
PALAKKAD, PIN – 678732

¶11

4PRASHOR S
AGED 40 YEARS
S/O SAHADEVAN,
KANDATHUPARA HOUSE, MARUTHA ROAD P O,
CHANDRANAGAR, PALAKKAD, PIN – 678007

¶12

5SURESH S
AGED 44 YEARS
S/O SURENDRAN,
KURUPPATH HOUSE, THEKKUMURI,
KALLEPULLYP O, PALAKKAD, PIN – 678005

¶13

BY ADVS.
K.ANAND
AMEER SALIM

¶14

RESPONDENTS/STATE & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:

¶15

1STATE OF KERALA
REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
ERNAKULAM, PIN – 682031
2TIJU M BIJU
AGED 25 YEARS
S/O BIJU,
MOOLASSERIYIL HOUSE, KARIPUZHA P O,
MAVELIKKARA, KERALA, PIN – 690103
3AMARA MANI MAJHI
AGED 20 YEARS
S/O RASINDAR MAJHI,
PANDAMASKA, BELGHAR,
RANGAPURU, KANDHAMAL,
BELGHAR, ODISHA, PIN – 762107
4METAL MAJHI
AGED 20 YEARS
S/O BAYA MAJHI,
SALVATA, BURTIGARH, NARALA,
KALHANDI, ODISHA – 766100
5KULAMANI MAJHI
AGED 20 YEARS
S/O BAKE MAJHIO,
SAIBHATA, BURTIGARTH,
NARALA, ODISHA, PIN – 766100
BY ADV
JOBY CYRIAC

¶16

OTHER PRESENT:

¶17

PP SMT.SREEJA V
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶18

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
22.03.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

Crl.M.C.No.1232 of 2023

¶20

¶21

BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J.

¶22

==================== Crl.M.C.No.1232 of 2023

¶23

===================== Dated this the 22^nd day of March, 2023

¶24

ORDER

¶25

Petitioners have invoked the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash all proceedings against them.

¶26

Petitioners are the accused Nos. 1 to 5 in Crime No.83/2023 of Palakkad Cusba Police Station, registered for the offences under Sections 341, 323, 324, 448, 294(b), 506, 427 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Respondents 2 to 5 are the defacto complainant and the injured witnesses.

¶27

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondents, apart from the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶28

The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the matter has been settled and hence the proceedings against the petitioners ought to be quashed. It was also submitted that, considering the nature of offences alleged, no purpose would be served by continuing the proceedings.

¶29

In Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Another [(2012) 10 SCC 303], the Apex Court has held that in appropriate cases, the High Court can take note of the amicable resolution of disputes between the victim and the wrongdoer to put an end to the criminal proceedings.

¶30

Crl.M.C.No.1232 of 2023

¶31

¶32

This view was reiterated in Narinder Singh and Others v. State of Punjab and Another [(2014) 6 SCC 466] and Yogendra Yadav and Others v. State of Jharkhand and Another [(2014) 9 SCC 653].

¶33

I have perused Annexure B to Annexure E affidavits filed by respondents 2 to 5. The learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that upon verification, it is understood that the affidavits are genuine, and the defacto complainant and the other deponent stand by the contents thereof. I am satisfied that the matter has been settled and no public interest is involved in this case. There is no impediment for granting the prayer for quashing. The continuance of the proceedings will only be an exercise in futility.

¶34

Accordingly, all proceedings against the petitioners in Crime No.83/2023 of Palakkad Cusba Police Station, are quashed. This Crl.M.C is allowed as above.

¶35

Sd/-

¶36

BECHU KURIAN THOMAS

¶37

Jka/22.03.23.

¶38

Crl.M.C.No.1232 of 2023

¶39

¶40

APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 1232/2023

¶41

PETITIONERS ANNEXURES

¶42

Annexure ATRUE COPY OF THE F I R NO. 83/2023 DATED
03.02.2023 IN CRIME NO. 83/2023 OF
PALAKKAD CUSBA POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD
DISTRICT

¶43

Annexure BORIGINAL OF THE AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE
2ND RESPONDENT DATED 07.02.2023

¶44

Annexure CORIGINAL OF THE AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE
3RD RESPONDENT DATED 07.02.2023

¶45

Annexure DORIGINAL OF THE AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE
4TH RESPONDENT DATED 07.02.2023

¶46

Annexure EORIGINAL OF THE AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE
5TH RESPONDENT DATED 07.02.2023

Siju U v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Siju U 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

Sunish Elavankal Vs the Payyannur Co-Op Town Bank Ltd.

Alex .a @ Anu Vs State of Kerala

Shahul Hameed, Vs State of Kerala

Jayadeva.S.R. @ Jayadevan Vs the State of Kerala

Mujeeb Vs State of Kerala

Richu Jyothi Vs State of Kerala