Allowed

Priyaraj @ Aniyankunju v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC19 Feb 2024Crl.MC/482/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Accused in a Sessions Court case for trespass and threatening a witness sought quashing under Section 482 CrPC based on settlement with the defacto complainant. The court verified the affidavit of settlement and quashed all proceedings against the petitioners, allowing the petition.

What did the court decide?

All proceedings against the petitioners in S.C. No.500 of 2023, Sessions Court, Kollam were quashed.

Priyaraj @ Aniyankunju 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

MONDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 30TH MAGHA, 1945
CRL.MC NO. 482 OF 2024

¶5

CRIME NO.774/2019 OF Anchalummoodu Police Station, Kollam
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT SC 500/2023 OF DISTRICT COURT &

¶6

SESSIONS COURT,KOLLAM

¶7

PETITIONERS:

¶8

1 PRIYARAJ @ ANIYANKUNJU AGED 41 YEARS S/O.PRABHAKARAN, MUTHALAZHIKATH VEEDU, KADAVOOR CHERRY, THRIKKADAVOOR VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT NOW RESIDING AT VAIKKATHAZHATH VEEDU, KADAVOOR CHERRY, THRIKKADAVOOR VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT -, PIN - 691601

¶9

2 SHAJAHAN @ SHAJI AGED 42 YEARS S/O.SHAHUL HAMEED, AALUVILA THEKKATHIL, NEAR THAIKKAVU, KOCHALUMMOODU, KUREEPPUZHA CHERRY, THRIKKADAVOOR VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT -, PIN - 691601 BY ADVS. PRATHEESH.P ANJANA KANNATH

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

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

¶12

2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER ANCHALUMMOODU POLICE STATION, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 691601

¶13

3 PRASAD, S/O.BHADRAN AGED 43 YEARS

¶14

PADINJATTAZHIKATHU VEEDU, THRIKKADAVOOR VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 691601

¶15

OTHER PRESENT:

¶16

SRI. M.C. ASHI (PP) / SRI. A. MUHAMMED RAFFI (FOR
RESPONDENT)

¶17

CRL.MC NO. 482 OF 2024

¶18

¶19

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 19.02.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

CRL.MC NO. 482 OF 2024

¶21

¶22

BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J.

¶23

Crl.M.C. No. 482 of 2024

¶24

Dated this the 19^th day of February, 2024

¶25

ORDER

¶26

Petitioners have invoked the jurisdiction under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to quash all proceedings against them.

¶27

Petitioners are accused Nos. 1 and 2 in S.C. No.500 of 2023 on the files of the Sessions Court, Kollam arising out of Crime No. 774 of 2019 of Anchalummoodu Police Station, Kollam registered for the offences under Sections 447, 195A, 506(i) r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Third respondent is the defacto complainant.

¶28

According to the prosecution, the accused had on 24-06-2019 trespassed into the property of the defacto complainant and threatened him to give a statement in favour of the accused in a murder case in S.C. No.239/2017 and thereby committed the offences alleged.

¶29

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

¶30

The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the

¶31

¶32

CRL.MC NO. 482 OF 2024

¶33

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.

¶34

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].

¶35

I have perused Annexure A3 affidavit filed by the 3^rd 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.

¶36

Though the offence under Section 195A may have an element of public interest, considering the peculiar circumstances of this case, especially the fact that the defacto complainant had

¶37

¶38

CRL.MC NO. 482 OF 2024

¶39

spoken against the accused resulting in the conviction of the petitioners, I am of the view that the settlement arrived at between the parties can be relied upon.

¶40

Accordingly, all proceedings against the petitioners in S.C. No.500 of 2023 on the files of the Sessions Court, Kollam are quashed.

¶41

This Crl.M.C is allowed as above.

¶42

BECHU KURIAN THOMAS JUDGE

¶43

AJM

¶44

CRL.MC NO. 482 OF 2024

¶45

¶46

APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 482/2024

¶47

PETITIONER ANNEXURES

¶48

Annexure A1 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF FIR IN CRIME NO.774/2019 OF ANCHALUMMOODU POLICE STATION DATED 26.06.2019 Annexure A2 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO.774/2019 OF ANCHALUMMOODU POLICE STATION DATED 20.12.2020 Annexure A3 THE COPY OF AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 11.1.2024 TRUE COPY

Priyaraj @ Aniyankunju v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Priyaraj @ Aniyankunju 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

Albin Binu Vs the State of Kerala

Aswinikumar Vs State of Kerala

Ronak Vs the State of Kerala

Migdad Vs State of Kerala

Yesudasan Vs State of Kerala

Biju George, Vs State of Kerala