Allowed

Subramanian. K.K v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC14 Feb 2024Crl.MC/102/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Accused in a settled cheating and caste-abuse prosecution sought quashing of the FIR and final report via Crl.M.C. under Section 482 CrPC. With the de-facto complainant's affidavit confirming settlement and no objection, the court relied on Supreme Court principles and quashed the FIR and final report in S.C.No.1128/2023.

What did the court decide?

Annexure 1 FIR and Annexure 2 final report in S.C.No.1128/2023 stand quashed.

Subramanian. K.K Vs State of Kerala — Caste Atrocities | Kerala HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SOPHY THOMAS

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 25TH MAGHA,

¶5

¶6

CRL.MC NO. 102 OF 2024

¶7

CRIME NO.826/2020 OF Ernakulam North Police Station,

¶8

Ernakulam

¶9

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT SC 1128/2023 OF DISTRICT COURT

¶10

& SESSIONS COURT, ERNAKULAM

¶11

PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1 TO 3:

¶12

1 SUBRAMANIAN. K.K AGED 73 YEARS S/O. KESAVAN, MULLOTHKAD, PERUMBADAPPU, PALLURUTHY, 1283 (15/1736) VELIPARAMBIL HOUSE, NEAR PASHNITHODU BRIDGE, PALLURUTHY, EDAKOCHI, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682010

¶13

2SHOBIKA
AGED 60 YEARS
W/O SUBRAMANIAN. K.K. MULLOTHKAD, PERUMBADAPPU,
PALLURUTHY, 1283 (15/1736) VELIPARAMBIL HOUSE
NEAR PASHNITHODU BRIDGE, PALLURUTHY, EDAKOCHI,
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682010

¶14

3MANU
AGED 37 YEARS
S/O SUBRAMANIAN. K.K., MULLOTHKAD,
PERUMBADAPPU, PALLURUTHY, 1283 (15/1736)
VELIPARAMBIL HOUSE NEAR PASHNITHODU BRIDGE,
PALLURUTHY, EDAKOCHI, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682010
BY ADVS.
B.R.MURALEEDHARAN
K.V.SANOSH
K.V.SURESH
NEETHU NALINAKSHAN

¶15

..2..

¶16

CRL MC NO.102/2024

¶17

RESPONDENTS/STATE, COMPLAINANT AND DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:

¶18

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

¶19

2 S.H.O. OF POLICE ERNAKULAM TOWN NORTH POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682011

¶20

3 K.D.VINODINI D/O. DAMODARAN, KARIMPADATH THUNDIYIL HOUSE, CHERANALLOOR VILLAGE, KANAYANNUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 683544

¶21

BY ADV ARUN NARAYANAN

¶22

PP-SRI.PRASANTH M.P

¶23

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
14.02.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:

¶24

CRL MC NO.102/2024

¶25

..3..

¶26

SOPHY THOMAS, J

¶27

=========================

¶28

Crl.M.C.No.102/2024

¶29

========================== Dated this the 14^th day of February, 2024

¶30

ORDER

¶31

This Crl.M.C. under Section 482 of CrPC is filed by the accused in Crime No.826/2020 of North Police Station, Ernakulam, registered under Section 420, 294(b) and 34 of IPC and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of S.C./S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, pending as S.C.No.1128/2023 on the file of Principal Sessions Court, Ernakulam, for quashing Annexure 1 FIR and Annexure 2 final report.

¶32

The prosecution allegation is that, the accused, with an intention to cheat the 3^rd respondent/de-facto complainant knowing that she belonged to a scheduled caste, obtained Rs.5 Lakhs/- from her, by mortgaging her property. When she demanded back the money, they assaulted and abused her calling her caste name.

¶33

When the matter is taken up for consideration, learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that, the matter has been amicably settled and he produced Annexure 3 affidavit filed by the de-facto complainant, stating that the

¶34

..4..

¶35

CRL MC NO.102/2024

¶36

entire dispute has been settled, and she is not intending to prosecute this matter any further.

¶37

Learned Public Prosecutor obtained instructions regarding the settlement, and produced signed statement of the de-facto complainant, in which she has stated that, she has no objection in quashing Annexure 1 FIR, Annexure 2 final report, and the proceedings pursuant to. Since the matter stands settled, there is no purpose in proceeding with the criminal prosecution, initiated against the petitioners.

¶38

In the light of the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Another [(2012) 10 SCC 303] and State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayanan and others [(2019) 5 SCC 688], this Court is of the view that the proceedings can be quashed on the basis of settlement.

¶39

In the result, this Criminal Miscellaneous Case is allowed, and Annexure 1 FIR and Annexure 2 final report in S.C.No.1128/2023 on the file of Principal Sessions Court, Ernakulam, stand quashed.

¶40

Sd/-

¶41

SOPHY THOMAS JUDGE

¶42

ACR

¶43

..5..

¶44

CRL MC NO.102/2024

¶45

APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 102/2024

¶46

PETITIONER ANNEXURES

¶47

Annexure 1THE TRUE ACCUSED COPY OF FIRST
INFORMATION REPORT IN CR. 826/2020 OF
ERNAKULAM TOWN NORTH POLICE STATION
DATED, 20.11.2020
Annexure 2THE TRUE ACCUSED COPY OF FINAL REPORT
DATED 18.12.2022 IN S.C 1128/2023 OF
PRINCIPAL SESSIONS COURT, ERNAKULAM IN
CR. 826/2020 OF ERNAKULAM TOWN NORTH
POLICE STATION
Annexure 3THE COMPROMISE AFFIDAVIT OF DEFACTO
COMPLAINANT DATED, 31.12.2023

Subramanian. K.K v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Subramanian. K.K 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

Ameer, Vs State of Kerala

Shahida Vs State of Kerala

Muhammed Ali Darbesh Khan Vs State of Kerala

Amal Siby, Vs State of Kerala

Ismail Vs State of Kerala

Mihran Vs State of Kerala