Allowed

Joel John v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC5 Jul 2024Crl.MC/4934/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners, accused in a hurt and wrongful restraint case, sought quashing of proceedings on the ground of settlement with the defacto complainant. Relying on Gian Singh and allied precedents, and satisfied by the complainant's affidavit verified by the Public Prosecutor, the court held continuation would be futile and quashed all proceedings.

What did the court decide?

All proceedings against petitioners in C.C. No. 566 of 2021, Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-I, Haripad quashed.

Joel John 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

FRIDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF JULY 2024 / 14TH ASHADHA, 1946

¶5

CRL.MC NO. 4934 OF 2024

¶6

CRIME NO.226/2021 OF Kareelakulangara Police Station, Alappuzha
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN CC NO.566 OF 2021 OF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS- I, HARIPAD
PETITIONERS:

¶7

1JOEL JOHN
AGED 26 YEARS
PADAVUPURAKKAL HOUSE,
CHINGOLI MURIYIL,
CHINGOLI VILLAGE,
CHINGOLI P.O,
ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT,
PIN - 690532
2JOHN CHACKO @ SUNNY
AGED 59 YEARS
PADAVUPURAKKAL HOUSE,
CHINGOLI MURIYIL,
CHINGOLI VILLAGE,
CHINGOLI P.O,
ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT,
PIN - 690532
3JERRY JOHN
AGED 30 YEARS
PADAVUPURAKKAL HOUSE,
CHINGOLI MURIYIL,
CHINGOLI VILLAGE,
CHINGOLI P.O,
ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT,
PIN - 690532
BY ADVS.
K.J.JOSEPH (ERNAKULAM)
ANSU VARGHESE

¶8

RESPONDENTS:

¶9

1STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
PIN - 682031
2OBINS
AGED 34 YEARS

¶10

CRL.MC NO. 4934 OF 2024

¶11

¶12

VALIYAVEETTIL,
CHINGOLI MURIYIL,
CHINGOLI VILLAGE,
CHINGOLI P.O,
ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT,
PIN - 690532
BY ADV KRISHNANUNNI G.B.

¶13

OTHER PRESENT:

¶14

SRI. ASHI M.C (PP)

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 05.07.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

CRL.MC NO. 4934 OF 2024

¶17

¶18

BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J.

¶19

Crl.M.C. No. 4934 of 2024

¶20

Dated this the 5^th day of July, 2024

¶21

ORDER

¶22

Petitioners have invoked the jurisdiction under Section

¶23

482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to quash all proceedings against them.

¶24

Petitioners are accused 1 to 3 in C.C. No. 566 of 2021 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate’s Court-I, Haripad, arising out of Crime No. 226 of 2021 of Kareelakulangara Police Station, Alappuzha, registered for the offences under Sections 323, 326, 294(b), 506 and 341 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Second respondent is the defacto complainant.

¶25

According to the prosecution, the accused had on 04-04-2021 restrained the defacto complainant and assaulted him inflicting grievous injuries and thereby committed the offences alleged.

¶26

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondent, apart from the learned

¶27

¶28

CRL.MC NO. 4934 OF 2024

¶29

Public Prosecutor.

¶30

The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the 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.

¶31

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].

¶32

I have perused Annexure 3 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.

¶33

CRL.MC NO. 4934 OF 2024

¶34

¶35

Accordingly, all proceedings against the petitioners in

¶36

C.C. No. 566 of 2021 on the files of the Judicial First Class

¶37

Magistrate’s Court-I, Haripad are quashed.

¶38

This Crl.M.C is allowed as above.

¶39

 Sd/-

¶40

BECHU KURIAN THOMAS JUDGE

¶41

AJM

¶42

CRL.MC NO. 4934 OF 2024

¶43

¶44

APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 4934/2024

¶45

PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure 1CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN
CC NO. 566/2021 ON THE FILE OF
JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE
COURT-I, HARIPAD
Annexure 2THE FIS IN CRIME NO. 226/2021 OF
KAREELAKULANGARA POLICE STATION
Annexure 3THE AFFIDAVIT SIGNED BY THE SECOND
RESPONDENT DATED 30/04/2024

Joel John v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Joel John 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

Philip C Thomas Vs State of Kerala

Kannu@Sulaiman Vs State of Kerala

Rijo K Babu Vs State of Kerala

Lijo Thomas Vs State of Kerala

Latheef Vs State of Kerala

Govardhanan B S Vs State of Kerala