Allowed

Ashwin.B. Jayadevan v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC20 Mar 2023Crl.MC/1469/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala quashed criminal proceedings against six petitioners accused of offences including murder and rioting. The court held that the matter was settled, no public interest was involved, and continued proceedings would serve no purpose.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings in C.C.No.42/2021 on files of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Hosdurg, arising from Crime No.498/2020 of Chandera Police Station, are quashed.

Ashwin.B. Jayadevan Vs State of Kerala — Quashing and FIR | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS

¶4

MONDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF MARCH 2023 / 29TH PHALGUNA, 1944

¶5

CRL.MC NO. 1469 OF 2023

¶6

CRIME NO.498/2020 OF CHANDERA POLICE STATION, KASARGOD

¶7

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.1 TO 6 :

¶8

1 ASHWIN.B. JAYADEVAN, AGED 21 YEARS S/O JAYADEVAN, PARAMBATH HOUSE, SOUTH THRIKKARIPUR VILLAGE, KASARGOD DISTRICT, PIN – 671 312.

¶9

2 VINOD KUMAR.C., AGED 47 YEARS S/O DAMODHARAN T.V, THAYATH HOUSE, THANKAYAM, SOUTH THRIKARIPUR, KASARGOD DISTRICT - 671 312.

¶10

3 RITHUL RAJ, AGED 21 YEARS, S/O RAJEEV, KEENARI HOUSE, MADAKKAL, UDUMBUMTHALA, SOUTH THRIKKARIPUR VILLAGE, KASARAGOD DISTRICT, PIN – 671 312.

¶11

4 ASWIN K., AGED 29 YEARS S/O AMBADI K., KUNNACHERY HOUSE, THANKAYAM, THRIKKARIPUR VILLAGE, KASARGOD DISTRICT, PIN – 671 312.

¶12

5 AKSHAY K., AGED 22 YEARS S/O AMBADI K., KUNNACHERY HOUSE, THANKAYAM, THRIKKARIPUR VILLAGE, KASARGOD DISTRICT – 671 312.

¶13

6 RITHUL.S.CHANDRAN, AGED 20 YEARS S/O CHANDRAN, SMITHAM HOUSE, KUNNACHERI, SOUTH THRIKKARIPUR VILLAGE, KASARAGOD DISTRICT, PIN – 671 312. BY ADV RAVEENA K.R.

¶14

RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE :

¶15

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

¶16

2 SINAN.A.P, AGED 23 YEARS S/O SIDIQUE, SINAN MANSIL, SOUTH THRIKKARIPUR VILLAGE, KASARAGOD DISTRICT, PIN – 671 312.

¶17

3 HASEENA.A.P., AGED 42 YEARS W/O SIDIQUE, SINAN MANSIL, SOUTH THRIKKARIPUR VILLAGE, KASARAGOD DISTRICT, PIN – 671 312. BY ADV PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SEETHA S. ADV.P.K.SUBHASH

¶18

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON

¶19

20.03.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

CRL.MC 1469/2023

¶21

¶22

BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J

¶23

......…..................................

¶24

Crl.M.C.No.1469 of 2023

¶25

…..................................

¶26

Dated this the 20^th day of March, 2023

¶27

ORDER

¶28

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

¶29

Petitioners are accused in C.C.No.42/2021 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Hosdurg, arising out of Crime No.498/2020 of Chandera Police Station, registered for the offences under Sections 143, 147, 148, 447, 427, 341, 323, 324 r/w Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

¶30

Respondents 2 and 3 are the defacto complainant and the injured witness.

¶31

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

¶32

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,

¶33

CRL.MC 1469/2023

¶34

¶35

considering the nature of offences alleged, no purpose would be served by continuing the proceedings.

¶36

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. 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].

¶37

I have perused Annexure-AII & Annexure-AIII affidavits filed by 2^nd and 3^rd respondents. 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.

¶38

CRL.MC 1469/2023

¶39

¶40

Accordingly, all proceedings against the petitioners in

¶41

C.C.No.42/2021 on the files of the Judicial First Class

¶42

Magistrate Court-I, Hosdurg, arising out of Crime No.498/2020

¶43

of Chandera Police Station, are quashed.

¶44

This Crl.M.C is allowed as above.

sd/-

BECHU KURIAN THOMAS

JUDGE

AMV/20/03/2023

CRL.MC 1469/2023

¶50

¶51

APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 1469/2023

¶52

`PETITIONER ANNEX`	`URES`
`Annexure AI`	`CERTIFIED COPY OF` `CRIME NO.498/2020` `STATION, KASARAGOD`	`THE FINAL REPORT IN` `OF CHANDERA POLICE` `DISTRICT`
`Annexure AII`	`AFFIDAVIT SWORN` `RESPONDENT.`	`TO BY THE 2ND`
`Annexure AIII`	`AFFIDAVIT SWORN` `RESPONDENT.`	`TO BY THE 3RD`

¶53

TRUE COPY

Ashwin.B. Jayadevan v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashwin.B. Jayadevan 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

Ramakrishna Pillai v Vs State of Kerala

Holy Trinity Anglo-Indian International School, Vs State of Kerala

Ibrahimkunji. M. @ Khaleel Vs State of Kerala

Eliamma Samuel Vs State of Kerala

Pramod P P Vs State of Kerala

Shanavas Vs State of Kerala