Allowed

Unni Mukundan v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC13 Sept 2023Crl.MC/4676/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Kerala allowed Criminal Misc. No. 4676/2023, quashing criminal proceedings in CC 1417/2017 against the petitioner under Sections 354 and 354B IPC. The court held the case was fit for quashment based on a settlement between the parties and the private nature of the complaint.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Misc. No. 4676/2023 allowed. All further proceedings against the petitioner in CC 1417/2017 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class-IX, Ernakulam quashed.

Unni Mukundan 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 GOPINATH P.

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 13^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2023 / 22ND BHADRA, 1945

¶5

CRL.MC NO. 4676 OF 2023

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT CC 1417/2017 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF

¶7

FIRST CLASS - IX, ERNAKULAM (TEMPORARY)

¶8

PETITIONER/S:

¶9

UNNI MUKUNDAN, AGED 35 YEARS, S/O MUKUNDAN "VRINDAVAN" NR KENDRIYAVIDHYALAYA S R K NAGAR OTTAPALAM, PIN - 679103

¶10

BY ADVS. SAIBY JOSE KIDANGOOR BENNY ANTONY PAREL ANOOP SEBASTIAN PRAMITHA AUGUSTINE IRINE MATHEW ADITHYA KIRAN V.E ANJALI NAIR NAAIL FATHIMA ABDULLA A. SWATHY SUDHIR

¶11

RESPONDENT/S:

¶12

1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031 2 SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHERANELLOR POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682034 3 PREETHI CHACKO AGED 34 YEARS, D/O CHACKO DEVASIA, RESIDING AT HOUSE NO 39/4525, K C ABRAHAM MASTER ROAD, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, NEAR FEDERAL BANK, KOCHI, PIN - 683036

¶13

BY ADVS. V.SREEJITH (K/1398/2000) MANSOOR.B.H.(K/351/2003)

¶14

OTHER PRESENT:

¶15

SRI. G SUDHEER (PP)

¶16

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13.09.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

Crl. M.C. No.4676/2023

¶18

-2-

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

The petitioner is the accused in Crime No.1481/2017 of Cheranelloor Police Station, Ernakulam which is now pending as CC 1417/2017 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-IX, Ernakulam alleging commission of offence under Sections 354 and 354B of the Indian Penal Code.

¶21

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the entire issues between the petitioner and the de facto complainant have been settled. It is submitted that at the instance of the petitioner certain complaints were filed against the de facto complainant and those proceedings have also been terminated on the ground of settlement between the petitioner and the de facto complainant. It is submitted that this is a fit case where further proceedings against the petitioner can be terminated on the ground of settlement.

¶22

The learned Public Prosecutor submits that pursuant to the order passed by this court on 15-06-2023, a statement of the 3^rd respondent ( de facto complainant ) was recorded through videoconferencing. It is submitted that 3^rd respondent / de facto complainant has stated that she does not wish to continue the proceedings in CC 1417/2017 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-IX, Ernakulam.

¶23

The learned counsel appearing for the 3^rd respondent also confirms that the 3^rd respondent does not wish to continue the proceedings against the petitioner in CC 1417/2017 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-IX, Ernakulam

¶24

Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel appearing for the 3^rd respondent and keeping in mind the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab; (2012) 10 SCC 303 and State of M.P. v. Laxmi Narayan ; (2019) 5 SCC 688 , I am of the view that the proceedings against the petitioner can be quashed on the ground of

¶25

Crl. M.C. No.4676/2023

¶26

-3-

¶27

settlement. No public purpose would be served by continuing with the proceedings against the petitioner in CC 1417/2017 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-IX, Ernakulam. The proceedings were initiated upon a private complaint. The chance of a successful prosecution are also minimal in the light of the settlement arrived at between the parties.

¶28

Therefore this Criminal M.C is allowed and all further proceedings against the petitioner in CC 1417/2017 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-IX, Ernakulam will stand quashed.

¶29

Sd/- GOPINATH P. JUDGE

¶30

AMG

¶31

Crl. M.C. No.4676/2023

¶32

-4-

¶33

APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 4676/2023

¶34

PETITIONER ANNEXURES

¶35

Annexure A	. TRUE COPY OF THE DISCHARGE PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 245 OF CR.PC BY THE PETITIONER DATED 17.05.2019 BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT IX
Annexure B	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST-CLASS MAGISTRATE IX, ERNAKULAM DATED 18.07.2019 IN C.M.P.NO.2497 OF 2019 IN C.C.NO.1417/2017
Annexure C	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE COURT OF SESSION, ERNAKULAM DIVISION DATED 21.05.2020 IN CRL RP 52/2019
Annexure D	TRUE COPY OF THE FIR NO: 1481/2017 DATED 10.12.2017 OF THE CHERANALLOOR POLICE STATION
Annexure E	TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HONORABLE COURT IN CRL.MC 2579/2021 DATED 23.05.2023
Annexure F	NOTARIZED COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SIGNED AND EXECUTED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT ON 27.05.2023

Unni Mukundan v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Unni Mukundan 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

Shabeel Vs Harshina

Shanfer A.P Vs State of Kerala

Krishna Sajeev Vs Aleena M

1. Beena @ Litty Vs State of Kerala

Shahir C.K Vs State of Kerala

Xxx Vs State of Kerala