Allowed

Vishnu @ Pappachan, v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC5 Jun 2024Crl.MC/2090/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Accused sought quashing of proceedings for assault offences after amicable settlement with the de facto complainant and injured witness. Relying on Gian Singh and related precedents and verifying the settlement affidavits, the High Court quashed all proceedings in the committal case.

What did the court decide?

All proceedings against petitioners in C.P.No.66/2023 (Crime No.1081/2023) quashed.

Vishnu @ Pappachan, 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

WEDNESDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF JUNE 2024 / 15TH JYAISHTA,1946
CRL.MC NO. 2090 OF 2024

¶5

CRIME NO.1081/2023 OF PARIPPALLY POLICE STATION, KOLLAM
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN CP NO.66 OF 2023 OF

¶6

JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT - II, PARAVUR
PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 & 2:

¶7

1 VISHNU @ PAPPACHAN, AGED 34 YEARS S/O RAVEENDRAN, R.S.NIVAS, PAMPURAM CHERRY, PAMPURAM, PARIPPALLY VILLAGE, KOLLAM, PIN – 691 574.

¶8

2 NIRMAL RAJ, AGED 35 YEARS S/O VINAYAKAN, PANAYIL VEEDU, MEENAMBALAM, PAMPURAM CHERRY, PARIPPALLY VILLAGE, KOLLAM TALUK, PIN – 691 574. BY ADVS. MINI GANGADHARAN PRIYA M. N.SHIVA PRASADAN N.C.SAJUNAM

¶9

RESPONDENT/STATE & DE FACTO COMPLAINANT :

¶10

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN – 682 031.

¶11

2 SURESH, AGED 42 YEARS S/O SIVAPRASAD, SANTHOSH BHAVAN, KIZHAKKANELA CHERRY, PARIPPALLY VILLAGE , KOLLAM TALUK., PIN - 691574

¶12

3 ADDL.R3 IMPLEADED ABIN, S/O VIKRAMAN,30 YEARS, SHAILAJA MANDIRAM, KAZHUTHUMMOODU, KULAMADA, KIZHAKKENALA CHERRY, PARIPALLU VILLAGE, KOLLAM TALUK -691572. ADDL.R3 IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 29.05.2024 IN CRL.M.A.NO.2/2024.

¶13

BY ADV ASWATHI S KUMAR
SREEJA V. (PP)

¶14

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION

¶15

ON 05.06.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:

¶16

CRL.MC 2090/2024

¶17

¶18

BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J

¶19

......….............................................

¶20

Crl.M.C.No.2090 of 2024

¶21

…................................................ Dated this the 5^th day of June, 2024

¶22

ORDER

¶23

Petitioners have invoked the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash all proceedings against them.

¶24

Petitioners are the accused Nos.1 and 2 in C.P.No.66/2023 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Paravur, arising out of Crime No.1081/2023 of Parippally Police Station, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 324, 201 and 308 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The second respondent is the de facto complainant and the third respondent is the injured witness.

¶25

According to the prosecution, on 15.08.2023 the accused had formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and restrained the de facto complainant, and assaulted him and thereby committed the offences alleged.

¶26

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondents, apart from the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶27

The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the matter has

¶28

CRL.MC 2090/2024

¶29

¶30

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.

¶31

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

¶32

[(2014) 6 SCC 466] and Yogendra Yadav and Others v. State of Jharkhand and Another [(2014) 9 SCC 653].

¶33

I have perused Annexure-A4 and Annexure-A5 affidavits filed by respondents 2 and 3. The learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that upon verification, it is understood that the affidavits are genuine, and the de facto complainant and other deponent stand 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 continuance of the proceedings will only be an exercise in futility.

¶34

CRL.MC 2090/2024

¶35

¶36

Accordingly, all proceedings against the petitioners in C.P.No.66/2023 on

¶37

the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Paravur, are

¶38

quashed.

¶39

This Crl.M.C is allowed as above.

¶40

sd/-

¶41

BECHU KURIAN THOMAS JUDGE

¶42

AMV/07/06/2024

¶43

CRL.MC 2090/2024

¶44

¶45

APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 2090/2024

¶46

PETITIONER ANNEXURES

¶47

ANNEXURE A1CERTIFIED COPY OF F.I.R NO: 1081/2023 OF
PARIPPALLY POLICE STATION REGISTERED ALLEGING
ACCUSATION OF HAVING COMMITTED OF AN OFFENCE
UNDER SECTION 143, 147, 148, 149, 341, 323,
324 & 308 OF THE I.P.C.
ANNEXURE A2CERTIFIED COPY OF F.I.S GIVEN BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT/ DE-FACTO COMPLAINANT.
ANNEXURE A3TRUE COPY OF CHARGE-SHEET IN C.P NO: 66/2023
ON THE FILE OF THE JFMC-II, PARAVUR, SCENE
MAHAZAR, WOUND CERTIFICATE, REPORT FOR
DELETING SECTION 147 & 148 WITH REPORT
DISCLOSING THE ADDRESS OF THE ACCUSED.
ANNEXURE A4TRUE AFFIDAVIT EXECUTED BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT/DE-FACTO COMPLAINANT EXPRESSING
HIS INTENTION NOT TO PURSUE WITH THE CASE.

¶48

TRUE COPY

Vishnu @ Pappachan, v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vishnu @ Pappachan, 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

Thyagarajan Vs State of Kerala

K.P.Geevarghese Alias Babu, Vs State of Kerala

Manjusha Vs State of Kerala

P. C. Thomas Vs the District Police Chief

Gopakumar Vs State of Kerala

Nithin Vs State of Kerala