Allowed

Biju v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC9 Apr 2024Crl.MC/8005/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala invoked Section 482 CrPC to quash criminal proceedings against two accused. Relying on settled precedents, the Court held that since the matter between the parties was amicably settled and no public interest remained involved, continuing the trial would be futile.

What did the court decide?

All proceedings against the petitioners in C.C. No. 1018 of 2014 arising from Crime No. 101 of 2014 at Parassala Police Station were quashed.

Biju Vs State of Kerala — Cheating and Forgery | 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 9TH DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 20TH CHAITHRA, 1946

¶5

CRL.MC NO. 8005 OF 2023

¶6

CRIME NO.101/2014 OF Parassala Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN CC NO.1018 OF 2014 OF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -II,NEYYATTINKARA

¶7

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 & 3:

¶8

1BIJU
AGED 41 YEARS
S/O. SASIDHARAN, BIJU BHAVAN, KUTTARATHALAKAL,
KIDANGUVILA, MANCHAVILAKOM, MEKOLLA DESOM, KOLLAYIL
VILLAGE, NEYYATTINKARA TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM –
695123.

¶9

2 MADHAVAN

¶10

AGED 67 YEARS
S/O. JAYANADHA PANICKER, KUTTARATHALAKAL, KIDANGUVILA,
MANCHAVILAKOM, MEKOLLA DESOM, KOLLAYIL VILLAGE,
NEYYATTINKARA TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – 695123.

¶11

BY ADVS.
G.SUDHEER
R.HARIKRISHNAN (H-308)
SMRITHI S.S.

¶12

RESPONDENTS/STATE & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:

¶13

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

¶14

2 VIJAYAKUMAR

¶15

AGED 61 YEARS
S/O. KAMALASSANAN, KUTTARATHALAKAL PUTHEN VEEDU,
MANCHAVILAKOM, MEKKOLLA DESOM, KOLLAYIL VILLAGE,
NEYYATTINKARA TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN – 695123.

¶16

CRL.MC NO. 8005 OF 2023

¶17

¶18

3GIRIJA
W/O VIJAYAKUMAR, KUTTARATHALACKAL PUTHEN
VEEDU, MANCHAVILAKOM DESOM, KOLLAYIL VILLAGE,
NEYYATINKARA TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -
695123. ( R3 IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED
10.01.2024 IN CRL.M.A NO.2/2024)

¶19

BY ADVS.
G.Sudheer
N.P.ASHA -R2, R3

¶20

SRI. T.R. RANJITH (PUBLIC PROSECUTOR)

¶21

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 09.04.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

CRL.MC NO. 8005 OF 2023

¶23

¶24

BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J.

¶25

Crl.M.C. No.8005 of 2023

¶26

Dated this the 9^th day of April, 2024

¶27

ORDER

¶28

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

¶29

Petitioners are accused Nos. 1 and 3 in C.C. No. 1018 of 2014 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate’s Court-II, Neyyattinkara, arising out of Crime No.101 of 2014 of Parassala Police Station, registered for the offences under Sections 447, 427, 506(ii) and 294(b) r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Respondents 2 and 3 are the defacto complainant and the injured witness.

¶30

According to the prosecution, the accused had on 11-01-2014 trespassed into the property of the defacto complainant and cut down certain trees, and also abused and threatened to kill him and thereby committed the offences alleged.

¶31

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

¶32

The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that

¶33

¶34

CRL.MC NO. 8005 OF 2023

¶35

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.

¶36

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

¶37

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].

¶38

I have perused Annexure A3 and Annexure A4 affidavits filed by respondents 3 and 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 deponent 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.

¶39

Accordingly, all proceedings against the petitioners in C.C. No. 1018 of 2014 on the files of the Judicial First Class

¶40

CRL.MC NO. 8005 OF 2023

¶41

¶42

Magistrate’s Court-II, Neyyattinkara are quashed.

¶43

This Crl.M.C is allowed as above.

¶44

BECHU KURIAN THOMAS JUDGE

¶45

AJM

¶46

CRL.MC NO. 8005 OF 2023

¶47

¶48

APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 8005/2023

¶49

PETITIONER ANNEXURES

¶50

Annexure A1COPY OF THE FIR AND FIS IN CRIME NO.
101/2014 OF PARASSALA POLICE STATION
DATED 21.1.2014.
Annexure A2CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT
IN C.C. NO. 1018/2014 ON THE FILE OF
JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE
COURT-II,NEYYATTINKARADATED
25.2.2014.
Annexure A3THE AFFIDAVIT DATED 13.6.2023 SWORN
IN BY 2ND RESPONDENT BEFORE NOTARY
PUBLIC.

Biju v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Biju 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

Union of India Vs State of Kerala

M/S Santhimadom Builders and Developers Trust, Vs State of Kerala

M/S Santhimadom Builders and Developers Trust Vs State of Kerala

Renjith @ Renjithkumar Vs the State of Kerala

Christian Association and Alliance for Social Action, Vs State of Kerala

Ami T.R. Vs State of Kerala