Allowed

Prem Kumar v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC6 Feb 2024Crl.MC/395/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A Section 482 CrPC petition sought quashing of an FIR and final report against the second accused in an assault case after settlement with the defacto complainant. Relying on precedent allowing partial quashing, the court quashed proceedings against the petitioner alone.

What did the court decide?

Annexure-A FIR and Annexure-B final report in C.C.No.1012/2022 quashed as against petitioner; proceedings to continue against 1st accused.

Prem Kumar Vs State of Kerala — Quashing and FIR | Kerala HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SOPHY THOMAS

¶2

 TUESDAY, THE 6 TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 17TH MAGHA, 1945

¶3

CRL.MC NO. 395 OF 2024
CRIME NO.1103/2022 OF Vizhinjam Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT CC 1012/2022 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF
FIRST CLASS,NEYYATTINKARA (TEMPORARY)
PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.2:

¶4

PREM KUMAR AGED 28 YEARS S/O PRAMOD RESIDING AT
ARYOTTUKONAM HOUSE, VENNIYOOR DESOM, VENGANOOR VILLAGE,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 695523

¶5

BY ADV GODWIN JOSEPH

¶6

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, (THROUGH STATION HOUSE OFFICER, VIZHINJAM POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT), PIN - 682031

¶7

2 JOLLY AGED 36 YEARS D/O THANKAM, RESIDING AT VADAKKE CHARUVILA VEEDU, NEAR VAVVA MOOLA WORKSHOP, VENGANOOR VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 695523

¶8

SR.PP-SRI.VIPIN NARAYANAN

¶9

 THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
 06.02.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶10

¶11

 CRL.MC NO.395 OF 2024

¶12

ORDER

¶13

This Crl.M.C. under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is filed by the 2^nd accused in Crime No.1103 of 2022 of Vizhinjam Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram, registered under Sections 294(b), 323, 509, 506(i), 427 and 34 of IPC, for quashing Annexure-A FIR and Annexure-B final report in C.C.No.1012 of 2022 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court (Temporary), Neyyattinkara.

¶14

The prosecution allegation is that, on 28.10.2022 at 5.30 p.m., the petitioner along with other accused persons physically assaulted the defacto complainant, committed mischief, and criminally intimidated her.

¶15

When the matter is taken up for consideration, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the matter stands settled between himself and the defacto

¶16

 CRL.MC NO.395 OF 2024

¶17

¶18

complainant, and produced Annexure-C affidavit of the 2^nd respondent/defacto complainant, endorsing the factum of settlement, and stating that, neither she has any intention to continue with the prosecution as against the petitioner nor any objection in quashing Annexure-A FIR and Annexure-B final report in C.C.No.1012 of 2022, as against the petitioner.

¶19

Learned Public Prosecutor on instructions

¶20

submitted that the matter has been settled between the petitioner and the 2^nd respondent, and he produced signed statement of the 2^nd respondent, stating that as the matter is settled between herself and the petitioner, she has no objection in quashing Annexure-A FIR and Annexure-B final report in C.C.No.1012 of 2022, as against him.

¶21

In the case on hand the petitioner is the 2nd

¶22

accused and the settlement is arrived only between the petitioner and 2^nd respondent. The 2^nd respondent has not settled the matter with the other accused. In Sajeev and

¶23

¶24

 CRL.MC NO.395 OF 2024

¶25

Another v. State of Kerala and Another [2022 (3) KHC 69] this Court held that, it is permissible in law to quash the FIR or final report only against one or some of the accused on the ground of settlement, depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case invoking Section 482 of Cr.P.C. Paragraph 9 of Sajeev’s case cited supra reads as follows.

¶26

“9. It is true that the settlement was arrived at between the 2nd respondent and the accused Nos.2 and 4 alone who are the petitioners. No settlement was arrived at with the remaining accused. Hence, the question is whether the FIR / Final Report against some of the accused alone could be quashed on the ground of settlement invoking S.482 of Cr.P.C. The Apex Court in Lovely Salhotra and Another v. State NCT of Delhi and Another, 2017 KHC 3564 : (2018) 12 SCC 391 : 2017 (2) KLT 424 : AIR 2017 SC 2595 quashed the proceedings against one of the accused alone, invoking S.482 of Cr.P.C. That was a case where the High Court refused to quash the proceeding holding that the FIR cannot be quashed in part. True, in the said case, the Apex Court had taken into account the facts of the case that no cognizable offence was made out. The Apex Court, on facts, also found that no offence was made out against the appellant / accused therein. However, the principle that could be deduced from the dictum laid down in the said decision is that it is not impermissible to quash the FIR qua

¶27

¶28

 CRL.MC NO.395 OF 2024

¶29

some of the accused alone, depending on the facts and circumstances of each case. In Sreejith v. State of Kerala and Another (Crl.M.C.No.3343/2021 dated 10/08/2021), this Court quashed the proceedings against one of the accused alone on the ground of settlement invoking S.482 of Cr.P.C. In these circumstances, I hold that it is permissible in law to quash the FIR or Final Report only against one or some of the accused on the ground of settlement, depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case invoking S.482 of Cr.P.C.”

¶30

The defacto complainant has condoned the act of

¶31

the petitioner, and filed an affidavit stating that she has no

¶32

intention to proceed against him. In such circumstances, the

¶33

crime can be quashed as against him.

¶34

In the light of the decision cited Supra, and also

¶35

relying on the principles laid down by the Apex Court in Gian

¶36

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

¶37

303)], and State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan

¶38

and Others ; [(2019) 5 SCC 688], this Court is of the view

¶39

that the proceedings against the petitioner can be quashed

¶40

 CRL.MC NO.395 OF 2024

¶41

¶42

on the basis of settlement.

¶43

In the result, this Crl.M.C. is allowed and

¶44

Annexure-A FIR and Annexure-B final report in C.C.No.1012

¶45

of 2022 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court

¶46

(Temporary), Neyyattinkara, stand quashed, as against the petitioner herein. It is made clear that proceedings in C.C.No.1012 of 2022 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court (Temporary), Neyyattinkara shall be

¶47

continued as against the 1st accused.

¶48

Sd/-

¶49

SOPHY THOMAS JUDGE

¶50

SSK/06/02

¶51

¶52

 CRL.MC NO.395 OF 2024

¶53

PETITIONER ANNEXURES

¶54

Annexure A THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR DATED 02.11.2022 IN CRIME NO. 1103/2022 OF THE VIZHINJAM POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT

¶55

Annexure B THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT DATED 13.11.2022 IN IN CRIME NO. 1103/2022 OF THE VIZHINJAM POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, NOW PENDING AS C.C. NO. 1012/2022 BEFORE THE HON'BLE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT (TEMPORARY), NEYYATTINKARA A TRUE COPY AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 2ND

¶56

Annexure C RESPONDENT/DE-FACTO COMPLAINANT ON 08.01.2024 BEFORE THIS HON'BLE COURT STATING THE SETTLEMENT OF ALL THE DISPUTES IN CRIME NO. 1103/2022 OF VIZHINJAM POLICE STATION

Prem Kumar v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prem Kumar 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

Nasif Binshad, Vs State of Kerala

Riyas B., Vs State of Kerala

Sainudheen.v.v., Vs State of Kerala

Sushama Devi Vs State of Kerala

Jezwin Rasheed, Vs State of Kerala

Manu, Vs State of Kerala