Allowed

Prakeerth P v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC2 Jul 2024Crl.MC/694/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Four accused sought quashing of proceedings for assault offences under Sections 341, 323 and 324 r/w 34 IPC after settlement with the defacto complainant and injured witnesses. Verified settlement affidavits confirmed genuine resolution without public interest involvement.

What did the court decide?

All proceedings against petitioners in C.C. No.176/2023 on the files of Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-I, Kannur were quashed.

Prakeerth P 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

TUESDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF JULY 2024 / 11TH ASHADHA, 1946

¶5

CRL.MC NO. 694 OF 2024

¶6

CRIME NO.224/2023 OF Kannur Town, Kannur

¶7

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN CC NO.176 OF 2023 OF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -I, KANNUR
PETITIONERS:

¶8

1PRAKEERTH P
AGED 22 YEARS
S/O RANJITH
KRISHNAKRIPA,
MUNDERI, PADANNOTTE,
KANNUR CITY
KERALA, IN, PIN - 670621
2KALIDAS RANJITH
AGED 19 YEARS
S/O RENJITH
SREENARAYANA HOUSE,
PADANNAPALAM, CHALAD,
KANNUR CITY,
KERALA,, PIN - 670621
3ALEKH K
AGED 21 YEARS
S/O PRABHAKARAN
AMARAVATHI
KADACHIRA P O,
ORIKARA,
KANNUR CITY,
KERALA, INDIA,
PIN - 670621
4ABINAV SHENITH P K
AGED 22 YEARS
S/O SHENITH M N,
CHIMMANKOTTIL
MAMMAKUNNU ROAD, P O
KADACHIRA,
KANNUR,, PIN - 670621
BY ADVS.
V.S.CHANDRASEKHARAN
M.V.DAS
S.JAYAKUMAR
LEKSHMI SWAMINATHAN
N.K.RAMACHANDRAN
SHAHIM BIN AZIZ

¶9

CRL.MC NO. 694 OF 2024

¶10

¶11

RESPONDENTS:

¶12

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

¶13

2 SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE CENTRAL POLICE STATION, KANNUR, PIN - 670001

¶14

3 IYYAS HASSAN S/O. HASSAN, ASHIRWAD HOUSE, NEAR YOUTH CONGRESS BUS STOP, MUZHUPPILANGAD P O

¶15

4 JISHNU K , S/O. PREMARAJAN C P, SAYOOJYAM, JAWAN MUKKU, CHELAD P O.

¶16

5 NAKULJITH M S/O.SHAJITH, SREELAKAM HOUSE, PALAYAD, DHARMMADAM P O. BY ADVS. D.FEROZE . JANET VARGHESE(K/3593/2022)

¶17

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 02.07.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

CRL.MC NO. 694 OF 2024

¶19

¶20

BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J.

¶21

Crl.M.C. No. 694 of 2024

¶22

Dated this the 2^nd day of July, 2024

¶23

ORDER

¶24

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

¶25

Petitioners are accused in C.C. No.176 of 2023 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate’s Court-I, Kannur, arising out of Crime No. 224 of 2023 of Kannur Town Police Station, registered for the offences under Sections 341, 323 and 324 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Respondents 3 to 5 are the defacto complainant and the injured witnesses.

¶26

According to the prosecution, the accused had on 06-02-2023 formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and attacked the defacto complainant and the injured witnesses and thereby committed the offences alleged.

¶27

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

¶28

¶29

CRL.MC NO. 694 OF 2024

¶30

Public Prosecutor.

¶31

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.

¶32

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].

¶33

I have perused Annexure R3(A) to Annexure R3(C) affidavits filed by respondents 3 to 5. 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

¶34

CRL.MC NO. 694 OF 2024

¶35

5

¶36

proceedings will only be an exercise in futility.

¶37

Accordingly, all proceedings against the petitioners in

¶38

C.C. No.176 of 2023 on the files of the Judicial First Class

¶39

Magistrate’s Court-I, Kannur are quashed.

¶40

This Crl.M.C is allowed as above.

Sd/-

JUDGE

AJM

CRL.MC NO. 694 OF 2024

¶45

¶46

APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 694/2024

¶47

PETITIONER ANNEXURES

¶48

Annexure-A 1CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME
NO.0224 OF 2023 KANNUR TOWN POLICE
STATION, DATED 07/02/2023

¶49

Annexure-A 2CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN
CRIME NO.0224 OF 2023 OF KANNUR TOWN
POLICESTATION DATED 16.02.2023

¶50

RESPONDENT ANNEXURES

¶51

Annexure R3(A)TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT DATED
04.04.2024 SWORN BY THE 3RD
RESPONDENT
Annexure R3(B)TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT DATED
04.04.2024 SWORN BY THE 4TH
RESPONDENT
Annexure R3(C)TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT DATED
04.04.2024 SWORN BY THE 5TH
RESPONDENT

Prakeerth P v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prakeerth P 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

Jyothi George Vs Smt. Meera

Harikrishnan Vs State of Kerala

Prasanth Narayanan Nair Vs Athira Krishna L

Leju Vs State of Kerala

Sreeja Anil Vs Reji Kallamvila

Aneesh @ Ani Vs State of Kerala