Allowed

Kannu@Sulaiman v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC3 Jul 2024Crl.MC/5151/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Accused Nos.1 and 2 sought quashing of C.C.No.673/2018 under Section 482 Cr.P.C after settling the assault dispute with the defacto complainant. Relying on Gian Singh and related decisions and verifying the complainant's affidavit, the Court found no public interest involved and quashed all proceedings.

What did the court decide?

All proceedings against petitioners in C.C.No.673/2018 quashed.

Kannu@Sulaiman 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

WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF JULY 2024 / 12TH ASHADHA, 1946

¶5

CRL.MC NO. 5151 OF 2024

¶6

CRIME NO.743/2018 OF KARUNAGAPALLY POLICE STATION, KOLLAM
 IN CC NO.673 OF 2018 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

¶7

CLASS - I, KARUNAGAPPALLY

¶8

PETITIONER/ACCUSED NOS. 1 & 2:

¶9

1KANNU@SULAIMAN
AGED 26 YEARS
S/O. MAIDEENKUNJU,
CHERUTHITTA KIZHAKKATHIL VEEDU,
KADATHOOR MURI, THAZHAVA VILLAGE,
THAZHAVA.P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN – 690523

¶10

2RIYAS
AGED 40 YEARS
S/O. SULAIMAN,
CHERUTHITTA KIZHAKKATHIL VEEDU,
KADATHOOR MURI, THAZHAVA VILLAGE,
THAZHAVA.P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN – 690523

¶11

BY ADVS.
R.RAJESH (VARKALA)
MANU RAMACHANDRAN
M.KIRANLAL
SAMEER M NAIR
T.S.SARATH
SAILAKSHMI MENON
JOTHISHA K.A.

¶12

RESPONDENTS/STATE, I.O, DEFACTO COMPLAINANT/INJURED:

¶13

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

¶14

Crl.M.C.No.5151 of 2024

¶15

-:2:-

¶16

2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER KARUNAGAPPALLY POLICE STATION, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 690523

¶17

3SUMESH
AGED 44 YEARS
S/O SURENDRAN PILLA ,
VIJAYAMANDIRAMVEEDU, KADATHOOR MURI,
THAZHAVA VILLAGE, THAZHAVA .P.O.,
KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN – 690523

¶18

BY ADV. SABIKH MOHAMMED V.S

¶19

OTHER PRESENT:

¶20

SRI. ASHI M.C,
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶21

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
03.07.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

Crl.M.C.No.5151 of 2024

¶23

-:3:-

¶24

BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J.

¶25

--------------------------------------Crl.M.C.No.5151 of 2024

¶26

--------------------------------------- Dated this the 3^rd day of July, 2024

¶27

ORDER

¶28

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

¶29

Petitioners are accused Nos. 1 and 2 in C.C.No.673/2018 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Karunagappally, arising out of Crime No.743/2018 of Karunagappally Police Station, registered for the offences under Section 324 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Though initially Section 308 was incorporated, subsequently, at the filing of the final report, it was deleted. Third respondent is the defacto complainant.

¶30

According to the prosecution, the accused had, on on 25.05.2018, assaulted the defacto complainant, and thereby committed the offences alleged.

¶31

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

¶32

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

¶33

Crl.M.C.No.5151 of 2024

¶34

-:4:-

¶35

offences alleged, no purpose would be served by continuing the proceedings.

¶36

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].

¶37

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.

¶38

Accordingly, all proceedings against the petitioners in C.C.No.673/2018 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Karunagappally, are quashed.

¶39

This Crl.M.C is allowed as above.

¶40

Sd/-

¶41

BECHU KURIAN THOMAS JUDGE

¶42

Jka/03.07.24.

¶43

Crl.M.C.No.5151 of 2024

¶44

-:5:-

¶45

APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 5151/2024

¶46

PETITIONERS’ ANNEXURES

¶47

Annexure A1THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.
743/2018 OF KARUNAGAPPALLY POLICE STATION,
KOLLAM DISTRICT

¶48

Annexure A2THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN
CRIME NO.743/2018 OF KARUNAGAPPALLY POLICE
STATION NOW WHICH IS PENDING AS C.C. NO.
673/2018 BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS
MAGISTRATE COURT, KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM
DISTRICT

¶49

Annexure A3THE ORIGINAL OF THE AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE
3RD RESPONDENT/DE-FACTO COMPLAINANT DATED
01.06.2024

Kannu@Sulaiman v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kannu@Sulaiman 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

Prakeerth P Vs State of Kerala

Leju Vs State of Kerala

Sreeja Anil Vs Reji Kallamvila

Philip C Thomas Vs State of Kerala

Rijo K Babu Vs State of Kerala

Lijo Thomas Vs State of Kerala