Allowed

Krishnadas v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC16 Feb 2024Crl.MC/359/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought to quash criminal proceedings alleging offences under IPC following a trespass and robbery. The High Court, noting a mutually settled affidavit from the victim and the Public Prosecutor's opinion, held that public interest was not involved and proceedings were an exercise in futility. The case was dismissed allowing the petition.

What did the court decide?

Quashed all proceedings in C.C.No.2608 of 2017 against the petitioners.

Krishnadas 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
FRIDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 27TH MAGHA,

¶4

1945

¶5

CRL.MC NO. 359 OF 2024

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT CC 2608/2017 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -I,THRISSUR

¶7

PETITIONER/ACCUSED 1 & 2:

¶8

1 KRISHNADAS, AGED 69 YEARS S/O.RAMAN, VAISYAPPATT HOUSE, P.O.ENGINEERING COLLEGE, MANNAMKAD, PALLIMOOLA, THRISSUR, PIN – 680 631.

¶9

2 VISWANATHAN, AGED 64 YEARS S/O.RAMAN, VAISYAPPATT HOUSE, P.O.ENGINEERING COLLEGE, MANNAMKAD, PALLIMOOLA, THRISSUR, PIN – 680 631.

¶10

BY ADVS.
C.A.CHACKO
C.M.CHARISMA

¶11

RESPONDENT/STATE & COMPLAINANT :

¶12

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

¶13

2 RADHAKRISHNAN, AGED 68 YEARS S/O.LATE KUTTAPPAN, MADHATHIPARAMBIL HOUSE, P.O.KUNDUKAD, KARUVANKAD DESOM, THRISSUR, PIN – 680 028.

¶14

SRI. T.R. RANJITH (PP) SRI.BENNY VARGHESE, R2

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 16.02.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:

¶16

CRL.MC NO. 359 OF 2024

¶17

¶18

BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J

¶19

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

¶20

Crl.M.C.No.359 of 2024

¶21

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

¶22

Dated this the 16^th day of February, 2024

¶23

ORDER

¶24

Petitioners have invoked the jurisdiction under Section 482

¶25

Cr.P.C to quash all proceedings against them.

¶26

Petitioners are accused Nos.1 and 2 in C.C.No.2608 of 2017

¶27

on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Thrissur, arising out of a private complaint filed by the second respondent, alleging offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 394, and 452 r/w Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The second respondent is the defacto complainant.

¶28

According to the de facto complainant, the accused had trespasssed into the house of the de facto complainant and robed household items including gold ornaments and thereby committed the offences alleged.

¶29

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned

¶30

counsel for the respondent, apart from the learned Public

¶31

CRL.MC NO. 359 OF 2024

¶32

¶33

Prosecutor.

¶34

The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the

¶35

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.

¶36

In Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Another [(2012) 10 SCC

¶37

303], the Apex Court has held that in appropriate cases, the

¶38

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

¶39

Narinder Singh and Others v. State of Punjab and Another

¶40

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

¶41

I have perused Annexure-A2 affidavit filed by the second respondent. The learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that upon verification, it is understood that the affidavit is genuine, and the de facto complainant stands by the contents thereof. I am satisfied that the matter has been settled and

¶42

¶43

CRL.MC NO. 359 OF 2024

¶44

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.

¶45

Accordingly, all proceedings against the petitioners in C.C.No.2608 of 2017 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Thrissur, are quashed.

¶46

This Crl.M.C is allowed as above.

¶47

sd/BECHU KURIAN THOMAS JUDGE

¶48

AMV/17/02/2024

¶49

CRL.MC NO. 359 OF 2024

¶50

¶51

APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 359/2024

¶52

PETITIONER ANNEXURES

¶53

`ANNEXURE A1`	`CERTIFIED`	`COPY OF`	`PRIVATE`	`COMP`	`LAINT`
	`DATED` `30`	`/1/2015`	`FILED`	`BY`	`2ND`
	`RESPONDENT`	`HEREIN.`
`ANNEXURE A2`	`AFFIDAVIT` `RESPONDENT.`	`DATED`	`9/1/2024`	`OF`	`2ND`

¶54

TRUE COPY

Krishnadas v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Krishnadas 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

Rameez K.T. Vs State of Kerala

Althaf Vs State of Kerala

Ajith Chandran Vs State of Kerala

Albin Binu Vs the State of Kerala

Aswinikumar Vs State of Kerala

Ronak Vs the State of Kerala