Allowed

George Antony v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC1 Apr 2024Crl.MC/454/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash proceedings for offences of assault against accused No.2 in C.C.No.180/2020. The court found the matter genuinely settled based on affidavits verified by the Public Prosecutor, held no public interest was involved, and quashed all proceedings.

What did the court decide?

All proceedings against the petitioner in C.C.No.180/2020 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Ambalapuzha, were quashed.

George Antony Vs State of Kerala — Quashing and FIR | Kerala HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT

¶2

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
MONDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 12TH CHAITHRA, 1946

¶3

CRL.MC NO. 454 OF 2024

¶4

CRIME NO.1065/2012 OF AMBALAPPUZHA POLICE STATION, ALAPPUZHA
 IN CC NO.180 OF 2020 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,
AMBALAPUZHA

¶5

PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.2:

¶6

GEORGE ANTONY
AGED 51 YEARS
S/O. ANTHONY GREGORY,
PUTHIYA CHIRA PUTHEN VEETTIL,
KARUMADI VILLAGE, THAKAZHI PANCHAYATH,
THAKAZHI, ALAPPUZHA., PIN – 688562

¶7

BY ADVS.
B.PRAMOD
BIJU VIGNESWAR

¶8

RESPONDENTS/STATE & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:

¶9

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

¶10

2 MARIYAMMA

¶11

W/O. THOMAS,
KANIYAMPARAMBU VEEDU,
KARUMADI VILLAGE, THAKAZHI P. O.,
ALAPPUZHA., PIN – 688562

¶12

3THOMAS THOMAS
S/O. THOMAS,
KANIYAMPARAMBU VEEDU,
KARUMADI VILLAGE, THAKAZHI P. O.,

¶13

Crl.M.C.No.454 of 2024

¶14

-:2:-

¶15

ALAPPUZHA., PIN – 688562

¶16

4BIJU
S/O. JOSEPH, EZHUPARAYIL,
KARUMADI VILLAGE,
THAKAZHI P. O., ALAPPUZHA., PIN – 688562

¶17

BY ADV S.K. SAJI

¶18

OTHER PRESENT:

¶19

SRI. T.R. RANJITH
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶20

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
01.04.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

-:3:-

¶22

Crl.M.C.No.454 of 2024

¶23

BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J.

¶24

Crl.M.C.No.454 of 2024

¶25

Dated this the 1^st day of April, 2024

¶26

ORDER

¶27

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

¶28

Petitioner is the second accused in C.C.No.180/2020 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Ambalapuzha, arising out of Crime No.1065/2012 of Ambalapuzha Police Station, Alappuzha District, registered for the offences under Sections 294(b), 323, 341 and 451 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Respondents 2 to 4 are the defacto complainant and the injured witnesses.

¶29

According to the prosecution, the accused had, on 16.10.2012, assaulted the defacto complainant and the injured witnesses after abusing them thereby committed the offences alleged.

¶30

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents, 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 proceedings.

¶32

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

¶33

Crl.M.C.No.454 of 2024

¶34

-:4:-

¶35

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].

¶36

I have perused Annexure-A3 to Annexure-A5 affidavits filed by respondents 2 to 4. The learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that upon verification, it is understood that the affidavits are genuine, and the defacto complainant and the other deponents 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.

¶37

Accordingly, all proceedings against the petitioner in C.C.No.180/2020 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Ambalapuzha, are quashed.

¶38

This Crl.M.C is allowed as above.

¶39

Sd/-

¶40

BECHU KURIAN THOMAS JUDGE

¶41

Jka/01.04.24.

¶42

Crl.M.C.No.454 of 2024

¶43

-:5:-

¶44

APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 454/2024

¶45

PETITIONER’S ANNEXURES

¶46

Annexure A1TRUE COPY OF THE CHARGE SHEET DATED NIL IN
CRIME NO. 1065/2012 OF AMBALAPPUZHA POLICE
STATION.

¶47

Annexure A2TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 25.02.2020
IN C. C. NO. 2743/2013 OF THE HON'BLE
JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT,
AMBALAPUZHA.

¶48

Annexure A3TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT DATED
22.12.2023 SWORN BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶49

Annexure A4TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT DATED
22.12.2023 SWORN BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶50

Annexure A5TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT DATED
22.12.2023 SWORN BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.

George Antony v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

George Antony 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

Savad.P Vs State of Kerala

T.K. Gangan Menon Vs Authorised Officer

Suresh Kumar Vs State of Kerala

Dalu R.Das, Vs Dinesh Lal

K.J.James Vs Mr. Babu P. Kuriakose

K.J.James Vs G.Jayaraj