Allowed

Vishnu Babu v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC17 Jan 2023Crl.MC/197/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed a criminal miscellaneous petition to quash a final report in C.C. No. 610/2017. Relying on settlement between parties and personal nature of the dispute, the Court invoked S.482 CrPC to stop proceedings under sections pertaining to danger to life and safety, with directions to levy compensation if necessary under the final report.

What did the court decide?

The Crl.M.C. is allowed. Annexure-A2 Final Report in C.C. No. 610/2017 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Varkala, Thiruvananthapuram is hereby quashed.

Vishnu Babu Vs State of Kerala — Quashing and FIR | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 17^TH DAY OF JANUARY 2023 / 27TH POUSHA, 1944

¶5

CRL.MC NO. 197 OF 2023

¶6

CRIME NO.214/2017 OF VARKALA POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

¶7

CC 610/2017 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, VARKALA PETITIONER/SOLE ACCUSED:

¶8

VISHNU BABU AGED 32 YEARS S/O SURENDRA BABU, PATTUVILA VEEDU, KURAKKANNI DESOM, VARKALA VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 695141

¶9

BY ADVS. R.RAJESH (VARKALA) M.KIRANLAL MANU RAMACHANDRAN SAMEER M NAIR GEETHU KRISHNAN SAILAKSHMI MENON

¶10

RESPONDENTS/STATE, DE FACTO COMPLAINANT & INJURED:

¶11

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

¶12

2 PADMAKUMAR

¶13

AGED 54 YEARS S/O V.P. KUNJU, NEDIYAVILA VEEDU, NEAR M.G.M MODEL SCHOOL, AYIROOR DESOM, AYIROOR VILLAGE & P.O., VARKALA TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 695310

¶14

3 SINDHU AGED 44 YEARS

¶15

CRL.MC NO. 197 OF 2023

¶16

¶17

W/O PADMAKUMAR, NEDIYAVILA VEEDU, NEAR M.G.M MODEL SCHOOL, AYIROOR DESOM, AYIROOR VILLAGE & P.O., VARKALA TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 695310

¶18

4 SANJU SUBASH AGED 23 YEARS S/O SUBASH KRISHNA PILLAI, HOLDER OF INDIAN PASSPORT NO.T 9902141, PERMANENTLY RESIDING AT SUDHA BHAVAN, POIKAYIL ROAD, KANNAMBA DESOM, VARKALA VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 695145 NOW WORKING AT JABEL ALI, JAFS SOUTH ACCOMMODATION,UNITED ARAB EMIRATES

¶19

BY ADV SABIKH MOHAMMED V.S, SMT.T.V.NEEMA, SR.P.P

¶20

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON

¶21

17.01.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

¶23

CRL.MC NO. 197 OF 2023

¶24

O R D E R

¶25

This Crl.M.C. has been preferred to quash Annexure-A2 Final Report in C.C.No.610/2017 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Varkala, Thiruvananthapuram on the ground of settlement between the parties.

¶26

The petitioner is the accused. The 2^nd respondent is the de facto complainant. The respondents 3 and 4 are the injured.

¶27

The offences alleged against the petitioners are punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of IPC and Sections 146 r/w 196 of Motor Vehicles Act.

¶28

The respondents 2 to 4 entered appearance through counsel. Affidavits sworn in by them are also produced.

¶29

I have heard Sri. R.Rajesh (Varkala), the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri.Sabikh Mohammed V.S., the learned counsel for the respondents 2 to 4 and Smt.T.V.Neema , the learned Senior Public Prosecutor.

¶30

The averments in the petition as well as the affidavits sworn in by the respondents 2 to 4 would show that the entire dispute between the parties has been amicably settled and the de facto complainant has decided not to proceed with the criminal proceedings further. The

¶31

¶32

CRL.MC NO. 197 OF 2023

¶33

learned Prosecutor, on instruction, submits that the matter was enquired into through the investigating officer and a statement of the de facto complainant was also recorded wherein they reported that the matter was amicably settled.

¶34

The Apex Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab [2012 (4) KLT 108 (SC)], Narinder Singh and Others v. State of Punjab and Others [(2014) 6 SCC 466] and in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan and Others [(2019) 5 SCC 688] has held that the High Court by invoking S.482 of Cr.P.C can quash criminal proceedings in relation to non compoundable offence where the parties have settled the matter between themselves notwithstanding the bar under S.320 of Cr.P.C. if it is warranted in the given facts and circumstances of the case or to ensure the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of process of any Court.

¶35

The dispute in the above case is purely personal in nature. No public interest or harmony will be adversely affected by quashing the proceedings pursuant to Annexure-A2. The offences in question do not fall within the category of offences prohibited for compounding in terms of the pronouncement of the Apex Court in Gian Singh (supra), Narinder Singh (supra) and Laxmi Narayan (supra).

¶36

¶37

CRL.MC NO. 197 OF 2023

¶38

For the reasons stated above, I am of the view that no purpose will be served in proceeding with the matter any further. Accordingly, the Crl.M.C. is allowed. Annexure-A2 Final Report in C.C.No.610/2017 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Varkala, Thiruvananthapuram hereby stands quashed.

¶39

Sd/- DR.KAUSER EDAPPAGATH, JUDGE

¶40

¶41

CRL.MC NO. 197 OF 2023

¶42

¶43

APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 197/2023

¶44

PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:

¶45

ANNEXURE A1 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.214/2017 OF VARKALA POLICE STATION, KOLLAM DISTRICT ANNEXURE A2 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO.214/2017 OF VARKALA POLICE STATION, KOLLAM DISTRICT WHICH IS NOW PENDING AS C.C NO. 610/2017 ON THE FILES OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE'S COURT, VARKALA - I, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT ANNEXURE A3 THE ORIGINAL AFFIDAVIT OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT/DE-FACTO COMPLAINANT DATED 15.12.2022 ANNEXURE A4 THE ORIGINAL AFFIDAVIT OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 15.12.2022 ANNEXURE A5 THE ORIGINAL AFFIDAVIT OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 11.11.2022

Vishnu Babu v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vishnu Babu 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

Muhammed Riyas Vs State of Kerala

Aneesh V.S Vs State of Kerala

Ashraf Kurikkal @ Muthu Vs State of Kerala

Jinsu S Vs State of Kerala

Nithin Antony Vs State of Kerala

Aji Kumar Vs State of Kerala