Allowed

Shaji Devasia v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC12 Mar 2024Crl.MC/202/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Accused sought quashing of an FIR relating to offences including unlawful assembly, house trespass and assault, arising from a family elopement dispute, based on an out-of-court settlement evidenced by affidavits from the de facto complainants. The court found the settlement genuine and quashed the FIR and all further proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Annexure-A FIR in Crime No.841/2023 of Keezhvaipur Police Station and all further proceedings against the petitioners quashed.

Shaji Devasia Vs State of Kerala — Quashing and FIR | Kerala HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 12^TH DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 22ND PHALGUNA, 1945

¶5

CRL.MC NO. 202 OF 2024

¶6

CRIME NO.841/2023 OF KEEZHVAIPUR POLICE STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA

¶7

PETITIONER/ACCUSED NOS 1 TO 4:

¶8

1 SHAJI DEVASIA

¶9

AGED 51 YEARS

¶10

S/O DEVASIA JOSEPH, KOCHU PARAMBIL KATTATHARA
HOUSE, ANNIKADU WESTP.O., ANNIKADU VILLAGE,
KOTTAYAM DISTRICT,, PIN - 686503

¶11

2 SUBIN DEVASIA

¶12

AGED 38 YEARS

¶13

S/O DEVASIA JOSEPH, KOTTATHARA HOUSE, ANNIKADU
WEST P.O., ANNIKADU VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.,
PIN - 686503

¶14

3 SETHU G. S. AGED 40 YEARS

¶15

S/O SUBHASH P.N., GOPURATHIL HOUSE, KUNNAMTHANAM,
KUNNAMTHANAM (PO), PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT., PIN
- 689581

¶16

4 KEVIN S CHACKO AGED 24 YEARS

¶17

S/O SHIBU CHACKO, MANNIL VEEDU, ANICADU P.O,
MALLAPPALLY TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT., PIN
- 689585

¶18

BY ADVS.

¶19

AJITH MURALI
SWAPNA VIJAYAN
MOHANAN M.K.

¶20

RESPONDENTS:

¶21

1 STATE OF KERALA

¶22

REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM., PIN - 682031

¶23

2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER KEEZHVAIPUR POLICE STATION, KEEZHVAIPUR , PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT., PIN - 689587

¶24

3 JIJI ABRAHAM

¶25

Crl.M.C.No.202 of 2024

¶26

-:2:-

¶27

AGED 58 YEARS
S/O ABRAHAM K.T, KOTHAPLAKKAL HOUSE,
EDAMURIKKAPADI, ANIKKAD P.O, MALLAPPALLY TALUK,
PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT., PIN - 689585

¶28

4ALEYAMMA JIJI
AGED 55 YEARS
W/O JIJI ABRAHAM, KOTHAPLAKKAL HOUSE ,
EDAMURIKKAPADI , ANIKAD P.O, MALLAPPALLY TALUK,
PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT., PIN - 689585

¶29

5JACOB ABRAHAM
AGED 56 YEARS
S/O ABRAHAM K.T, KOTHAPLAKKAL HOUSE,
EDAMURIKKAPADI, ANIKKAD P.O, MALLAPPALLY TALUK,
PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT., PIN - 689585

¶30

6RIJU ABRAHAM
AGED 31 YEARS
S/O JOCOB ABRAHAM , KOTHAPLAKKAL HOUSE,
EDAMURIKKAPADI, ANIKKAD P.O, MALLAPPALLY TALUK,
PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT., PIN – 689585

¶31

R1 & R2 BY SR. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. SEETHA S.
 R3 TO R6 BY SRI. P.V. DILEEPS

¶32

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON

¶33

12.03.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶34

-:3:-

¶35

Crl.M.C.No.202 of 2024

¶36

Dated this the 12^th day of March, 2024

¶37

O R D E R

¶38

The petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973, to quash Annexure-A First Information Report[FIR] in Crime No.841/2023 of the Keezhvaipur Police Station, Pathanamthitta and all further proceedings pursuant to it.

¶39

The petitioners are the accused 1 to 4 in the above crime, registered against them at the instance of the third respondent, for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 149, 451, 294(b), 323, 427 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code,1860.

¶40

The crux of the prosecution is that: on 13.12.2023, the sister of the 4^th accused had eloped with the son of the third respondent. On account of

¶41

Crl.M.C.No.202 of 2024

¶42

-:4:-

¶43

the said enmity, the third respondent and the accused along with two identifiable persons had an altercation in the courtyard of the third respondent. In the said altercation, the accused committed the above offences.

¶44

Heard; Sri.Ajith Murali, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Smt. Seetha S, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 and Sri.P.V Dileep, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 3 to 6.

¶45

The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the subject matter in dispute between the petitioners and the respondents 3 to 6/injured has been amicably settled out of court and the respondents 3 to 6 have no subsisting grievance as against the petitioners, and they have voluntarily executed Annexures B to E affidavits, stating that they have no objection in all further proceedings in the above crime being quashed. Hence, the petition may

¶46

Crl.M.C.No.202 of 2024

¶47

-:5:-

¶48

be allowed.

¶49

The learned Public Prosecutor, on instructions,

¶50

submitted that the Investigating Officer has ascertained and reported that the subject matter in dispute between the parties has been amicably settled and the respondents 3 to 6 have voluntarily executed Annexures B to E affidavits.

¶51

The learned counsel for the respondents 3 to 6 also submitted that the dispute between the parties has been settled and the said respondents have no subsisting grievance as against the petitioners. The said submission is recorded.

¶52

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab [2012 (10) SCC 303] and Prabatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and others vs. State of Gujarat and another [(2017) 9 SCC 641] has held that in the facts and circumstances of the case and to secure the ends of justice, where the

¶53

Crl.M.C.No.202 of 2024

¶54

-:6:-

¶55

High Court is satisfied that an amicable settlement has been arrived at between the parties and the offence is not serious in nature involving mental depravity, criminal proceedings may be quashed.

¶56

On a consideration of the facts, the rival submissions made across the Bar, and the materials on record, especially after going through Annexures B to E affidavits sworn in by the respondents 3 to 6, which has been found to be genuine and bona fide by the Investigating Officer, I am convinced and satisfied that this is a fit case to exercise the inherent power of this Court, particularly since the alleged offences are not serious in nature, no public interest is involved, the chances of conviction is remote, the continuation of the proceeding would only be wastage of judicial time and the settlement would augur harmony in society. Hence, I am inclined to allow the petition.

¶57

In the result, the Crl.M.C is allowed by quashing

¶58

Crl.M.C.No.202 of 2024

¶59

-:7:-

¶60

Annexure-I First Information Report[FIR] in Crime No.841/2023 of Keezhvaipur Police Station, Pathanamthitta and all further proceedings as against the petitioners.

¶61

The Crl.M.C is ordered accordingly.

SD/-

C.S.DIAS,JUDGE

rmm/12/3/2024

Crl.M.C.No.202 of 2024

¶66

-:8:-

¶67

APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 202/2024

¶68

PETITIONER ANNEXURES

¶69

Annexure-AA TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME
NO.841/2023 IN KEEZHVAIPUR POLICE
STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT DATED
14.12.2023.
Annexure-BA TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT OF THE 3RD
RESPONDENT.
Annexure-CA TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT OF THE 4TH
RESPONDENT.
Annexure-DA TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT OF THE 5TH
RESPONDENT.
Annexure-EA TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT OF THE 6TH
RESPONDENT.

Shaji Devasia v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shaji Devasia 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

Sufaid Vs State of Kerala

V.S. Sooraj Ayyannar Vs State of Kerala

Sophia Naushad Khan Vs State of Kerala

Shinimol M.P Vs State of Kerala

Binukuttan @ Binu. K, Vs Directorate of Revenue Intelligence

Shaji Varghese T.a, Vs State of Kerala