Allowed

Savio Sebastian v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC17 Jul 2024Crl.MC/3518/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Second accused in an assault case sought quashing under Section 482 Cr.P.C on the ground that parties had settled. Relying on settled-affidavit verification and Supreme Court precedent, the High Court quashed all proceedings in C.C. No.1195 of 2020.

What did the court decide?

All proceedings against the petitioner in C.C. No.1195 of 2020, Judicial Magistrate of First Class-I, Changanacherry quashed.

Savio Sebastian 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 17^TH DAY OF JULY 2024 / 26TH ASHADHA, 1946

¶5

CRL.MC NO. 3518 OF 2023

¶6

CRIME NO.1135/2020 OF Changanassery Police Station, Kottayam C.C.NO.1195 OF 2020 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE'S COURT,

¶7

CHANGANACHERRY

¶8

PETITIONER/ ACCUSED NO.2 :

¶9

SAVIO SEBASTIAN AGED 20 YEARS PALATHINKAL HOUSE, PERUNNAI P.O., FATHIMAPURAM P.O., CHANGANACHERRY VILLAGE, CHANGANACHERRY TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686102

¶10

BY ADVS. K.SHAJ C.IJLAL JOSEPH MARY DAS ARUN CHAND BHARAT VIJAY P. MAJID MUHAMMED K. MINU VITTORRIA PAULSON

¶11

RESPONDENT/ STATE/ DEFACTO COMPLAINANT :

¶12

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

¶13

2 SENJU SABASTIAN AGED 35 YEARS PERMANENTLY RESIDING AT POTHOTTIL HOUSE, MARKET BHAGOM, CHANGANACHERRY P.O., VAZHAPPALLY EAST VILLAGE, CHANGANACHERRY TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT - 686102, NOW AT TOP SOURCE GENERAL TRADING L.L.C., INDUSTRIAL AREA, DUBAI, U.A.E., PIN - 686102

¶14

BY ADV SERGI JOSEPH THOMAS

¶15

CRL.MC NO. 3518 OF 2023

¶16

¶17

BY SMT. SREEJA V., PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶18

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17.07.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

CRL.MC NO. 3518 OF 2023

¶20

¶21

BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J.

¶22

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

¶23

Crl.M.C.No.3518 of 2023

¶24

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

¶25

Dated this the 17^th day of July, 2024

¶26

ORDER

¶27

Petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash all proceedings against him.

¶28

Petitioner is the 2^nd accused in C.C. No.1195 of 2020 on the files of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-I, Changanacherry, arising out of Crime No.1135 of 2020 of Changanacherry Police Station, registered for the offences under Sections 294(b), 341 and 323 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 2^nd respondent is the defacto complainant.

¶29

According to the prosecution, the accused had on 04.02.2020 abused the defacto complainant and assaulted him after restraining him and thereby committed the offences alleged.

¶30

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent, apart from the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶31

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the matter has been settled and hence the proceedings against the petitioner ought to be quashed. It was also submitted that, considering the nature of offences alleged, no purpose would be served by continuing the

¶32

¶33

CRL.MC NO. 3518 OF 2023

¶34

proceedings.

¶35

Though the learned Public Prosecutor pointed out that the petitioner is involved in four crimes including a crime for offence under Sections 307, 395 as well as Section 308 of I.P.C., considering the nature of offences alleged in the present case and the settlement arrived at between the parties, I am of the view that no purpose would be achieved by continuing the prosecution.

¶36

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].

¶37

I have perused Annexure A4 affidavit filed by the 2^nd 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 continuance of the proceedings will only be an exercise in futility.

¶38

Accordingly, all proceedings against the petitioner in C.C. No.1195 of 2020 on the files of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-I,

¶39

CRL.MC NO. 3518 OF 2023 5 Changanacherry are quashed.

¶40

This Crl.M.C is allowed as above.

¶41

Sd/- BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, JUDGE

¶42

RKM

¶43

CRL.MC NO. 3518 OF 2023

¶44

¶45

APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 3518/2023

¶46

PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES :

¶47

Annexure A1	THE TRUE DATED 06	COP /11/2	Y OF THE DEATH CERTIFICATE 020 ISSUED BY REGISTRAR OF
	BIRTH PANCHAYA	AND T	DEATH, VAZHAPALLY GRAMA
Annexure A2	THE TRU NO.1135/ STATION,	E CO 2020 KOTT	PY OF THE FIR IN CRIME OF CHANGANACHERRY POLICE AYAM DISTRICT
Annexure A3	THE TRUE NO. 113 STATION,	COPY 5/202 KOTT	OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME 0 OF CHANGANACHERRY POLICE AYAM DISTRICT
Annexure A4	THE AFFI STATING WITH THE	DAVIT THE S PETI	SWORN BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT ETTLEMENT OF ALL THE DISPUTES TIONER

Savio Sebastian v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Savio Sebastian 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

Arshad H. Vs Sharmila S.

Rasheed B.K @ Rashid.B.K Vs State of Kerala

Dr.Swathi V.S Vs Dr.Anuraj K.A

Suresh Kumar K S @ Aji K S Vs State of Kerala

Abdul Rahman, Vs State of Kerala

Welfare Association of Poor & Deceived People Vs Union of India