Allowed

Lijo Thomas v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC5 Jul 2024Crl.MC/2062/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Accused in a trespass and assault case sought quashing under Section 482 CrPC after settling the dispute with the defacto complainant. Relying on Gian Singh and later decisions, the High Court found the settlement genuine, no public interest involved, and quashed all proceedings.

What did the court decide?

All proceedings against the petitioners in C.C. No. 1927 of 2013 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Adoor were quashed.

Lijo Thomas 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 BECHU KURIAN THOMAS

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF JULY 2024 / 14TH ASHADHA, 1946

¶5

CRL.MC NO. 2062 OF 2024

¶6

CRIME NO.486/2013 OF Adoor Police Station, Pathanamthitta
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN CC NO.1927 OF 2013 OF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS , ADOOR
PETITIONERS:

¶7

1LIJO THOMAS
AGED 30 YEARS
S/O. THOMAS,
POIKAYIL THEKKEKKARAYIL VEEDU,
AMMUMAPPARA,
MUNDAPALLY MURI,
PERINGANADU P.O.
PERINGANADU VILLAGE,
ADOOR TALUK,
PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT .,
PIN - 689551
2MATHEWS THOMAS
AGED 31 YEARS
S/O. THOMAS,
POIKAYIL THEKKEKKARAYIL VEEDU,
AMMUMAPPARA,
MUNDAPALLY MURI,
PERINGANADU P.O.
PERINGANADU VILLAGE,
ADOOR TALUK,
PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT .,
PIN - 689551
3ROSAMMA
AGED 55 YEARS
W/O. THOMAS,
POIKAYIL THEKKEKKARAYIL VEEDU,
AMMUMAPPARA,
MUNDAPALLY MURI,
PERINGANADU P.O.
PERINGANADU VILLAGE,
ADOOR TALUK,
PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT ., PIN - 689551
BY ADVS.
JOSEPH MARY DAS
ANU ABRAHAM

¶8

CRL.MC NO. 2062 OF 2024

¶9

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

1STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
PIN - 682031
2THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER
ADOOR POLICE STATION,
ADOOR, PATHANAMTHITTA,
KERALA ., PIN - 689523
3JOY
AGED 60 YEARS
S/O. STEPHANOS,
AMBULATHARA EDAPUZAYILVEEDU,
MUNDAPALLY,
PERINGANADU P.O.
PERINGANADU VILLAGE,
ADOOR TALUK,
PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT .,
PIN - 689551
BY ADV VINAYAK G MENON

¶12

OTHER PRESENT:

¶13

SRI. ASHI M.C (PP)

¶14

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 05.07.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

CRL.MC NO. 2062 OF 2024

¶16

¶17

BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J.

¶18

Crl.M.C. No. 2062 of 2024

¶19

Dated this the 5^th day of July, 2024

¶20

ORDER

¶21

Petitioners have invoked the jurisdiction under Section

¶22

482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to quash all proceedings against them.

¶23

Petitioners are accused 1 to 3 in C.C. No. 1927 of 2013 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate’s Court, Adoor, arising out of Crime No. 486 of 2013 of Adoor Police Station, Pathanamthitta, registered for the offences under Sections 447, 323 and 324 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Third respondent is the defacto complainant.

¶24

According to the prosecution, the accused had on 28-02-2013 trespassed into the house of the defacto complainant and assaulted him and thereby committed the offences alleged.

¶25

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondent, apart from the

¶26

¶27

CRL.MC NO. 2062 OF 2024

¶28

learned Public Prosecutor.

¶29

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

¶30

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].

¶31

I have perused Annexure A3 affidavit filed by the 3^rd respondent. The learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that upon verification, it is understood that the affidavit is genuine, and the defacto complainant stands 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

¶32

¶33

CRL.MC NO. 2062 OF 2024

¶34

continuance of the proceedings will only be an exercise in futility.

¶35

Accordingly, all proceedings against the petitioners in C.C. No. 1927 of 2013 on the files of the Judicial First

¶36

Class Magistrate’s Court, Adoor are quashed.

¶37

This Crl.M.C is allowed as above.

¶38

 Sd/-

¶39

BECHU KURIAN THOMAS JUDGE

¶40

AJM

¶41

CRL.MC NO. 2062 OF 2024

¶42

¶43

APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 2062/2024

¶44

PETITIONER ANNEXURES

¶45

Annexure A1THE ACCUSED COPY OF THE F.I.R. IN
CRIME NO. 486/2013 OF ADOOR POLICE
STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.
Annexure A2HE ACCUSED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT
IN C.C. NO. 1927/2023 PENDING BEFORE
THE FILES OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST
CLASSMAGISTRATECOURT-II
PATHANAMTHITTA.
Annexure 3AN AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 3RD
RESPONDENT/ DE-FACTO COMPLAINANT
STATING THE SETTLEMENT OF ALL THE
DISPUTES WITH THE PETITIONERS HEREIN
PERTAINING TO THE REGISTRATION OF
ANNEXURE A1 CRIME.

Lijo Thomas v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lijo Thomas 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

Philip C Thomas Vs State of Kerala

Kannu@Sulaiman Vs State of Kerala

Rijo K Babu Vs State of Kerala

Latheef Vs State of Kerala

Govardhanan B S Vs State of Kerala

Joel John Vs State of Kerala