Allowed

Sarath v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC14 Feb 2024Crl.MC/87/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Accused in a sessions case for unlawful assembly and assault sought quashing of proceedings after settlement. Affidavits of the defacto complainant and injured were verified as genuine; no public interest remained. Following Supreme Court precedent on amicable resolution, all proceedings were quashed.

What did the court decide?

All proceedings against petitioners in S.C. No.44/2019 before the Sessions Court, Pathanamthitta were quashed.

Sarath 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
WEDNESDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 25TH MAGHA, 1945
CRL.MC NO. 87 OF 2024

¶4

CRIME NO.971/2013 OF Enath Police Station, Pathanamthitta IN S.C.NO.44/2019 OF DISTRICT COURT& SESSIONS COURT,

¶5

PATHANAMTHITTA

¶6

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS. 1 TO 8:

¶7

1SARATH
AGED 35 YEARS
S/O KARUNAKARAN NAIR,
KULATHIN KATOTTU ALUMMOOTTIL VEEDU,
NEAR TO PERINGINAD TEMPLE,
PERINGANAD MURI,
PERINGANAD, ADOOR TALUK,
PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT., PIN – 691551

¶8

2VIVEK
AGED 30 YEARS
S/O RADHAKRISHNA PILLAI,
LAVANYA, POONTHOTTAM,
ILANGAMANGALAM MURI,
ENATHU VILLAGE, ADOOR TALUK,
PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT., PIN – 691551

¶9

3RAHUL
AGED 32 YEARS
S/O RAVEENDRAN NAIR,
NEDIYATHU THEKKETHIL VEEDU,
ILANGAMANGALAM, ILANGAMANGALAM MURI,
ENATHU VILLAGE, ADOOR TALUK,
PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT., PIN – 691551

¶10

4SREERAJ
AGED 37 YEARS
S/O RADHAKRISHNAN,

¶11

Crl.M.C.No.87 of 2024

¶12

-:2:-

¶13

RAJ BHAVAN, ILANGAMANGALAM,
ILANGAMANGALAM MURI,
ENATHU VILLAGE,ADOOR TALUK,
PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT., PIN – 691551

¶14

5SABARI
AGED 35 YEARS
S/O MURUKAN,
GIREESH BHAVANAM,
SOUTH TO EZHAMKULAM TEMPLE,
COLONY, EZHAMKULAM MURI, ADOOR TALUK,
PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT., PIN – 691554

¶15

6JAYAPRAKASH
AGED 40 YEARS
S/O CHANDRAHEKARAN NAIR,
PRAKASH BHAVANAM, NILAMEL,
MANNADI, KALAYKKA PADINJARU MURI,
NILAMEL, KADAMPANAD VILLAGE, ADOOR TALUK,
PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT., PIN – 691551

¶16

7ARUN N. SASIDHARAN
AGED 40 YEARS
S/O SASIDHARAN UNNITHAN,
RAJENDRA BHAVAN, VYALA MURI,
ERATHU VILLAGE, VYALA .P.O, ADOOR TALUK,
PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT., PIN – 691554

¶17

8DILEEP KUMAR
AGED 35 YEARS
S/O RAMACHANDRAN NAIR,
PANTHAPLAVIL PUTHEN VEEDU, KANNAMANKARA MURI,
KONNAMANKARA, ADOOR VILLAGE, ADOOR TALUK,
PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT., PIN – 691523

¶18

BY ADV P.V.DILEEP

¶19

RESPONDENTS/STATE, COMPLAINANT, DEFACTO COMPLAINANT AND INJURED:

¶20

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

¶21

Crl.M.C.No.87 of 2024

¶22

-:3:-

¶23

2*THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER
ADOOR POLICE STATION,
ADOOR P.O,
PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT., PIN – 691523
*[CORRECTED AS ENATHU POLICE STATION,
ENATHU P.O, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT-691523
AS PER ORDER DATED 05.01.2024 IN CRL.M.A.NO.2 OF
2024 IN CRL.M.C. NO.87/2024]

¶24

3SADANANDAN
AGED 59 YEARS
S/O KESAVAN,
VISHNU BHAVANAM, ILANGAMANGALAM MURI,
POONTHOTTAM, ENATHU VILLAGE, ADOOR TALUK,
PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT., PIN – 691551

¶25

4SANTHOSH KUMAR
AGED 55 YEARS
S/O KESAVAN, SANTHOSH BHAVANAM, ILANGAMANGALAM MURI,
POONTHOTTAM, ENATHU VILLAGE, ADOOR TALUK,
PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT., PIN – 691526

¶26

5SRATH MOHANAN
AGED 33 YEARS
S/O MOHANAN,
KESAVA SADANAM,
ILANGAMANGALAM MURI, POONTHOTTAM,
ENATHU VILLAGE, ADOOR TALUK,
PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT., PIN – 691526

¶27

6VISHNU
AGED 30 YEARS
S/O SADANANDAN,
VISHNU BHAVANAM,
ILANGAMANGALAM MURI, POONTHOTTAM,
ENATHU VILLAGE, ADOOR TALUK,
PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT., PIN – 691526

¶28

7SYAM MOHANAN
AGED 37 YEARS
S/O MOHANAN,
KESAVA SADANAM,
ILANGAMANGALAM MURI, POONTHOTTAM,
ENATHU VILLAGE, ADOOR TALUK,
PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT., PIN – 691526

¶29

Crl.M.C.No.87 of 2024

¶30

-:4:-

¶31

8JISHNU
AGED 28 YEARS
S/O SADANANDAN,
VISHNU BHAVANAM,
ILANGAMANGALAM MURI, POONTHOTTAM,
ENATHU VILLAGE, ADOOR TALUK,
PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT., PIN – 691526
9AJITHA
AGED 50 YEARS
W/O SADANANDAN,
VISHNU BHAVANAM,
ILANGAMANGALAM MURI, POONTHOTTAM,
ENATHU VILLAGE, ADOOR TALUK,
PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT., PIN – 691526
10CHANDRIKA
AGED 65 YEARS
W/O GOPALAN,
VISHNU BHAVANAM,
ILANGAMANGALAM MURI, POONTHOTTAM,
ENATHU VILLAGE, ADOOR TALUK,
PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT., PIN – 691526
BY ADV.
K.V.ANIL KUMAR

¶32

OTHER PRESENT:

¶33

SRI. NOUSHAD K.A.
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶34

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
14.02.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶35

Crl.M.C.No.87 of 2024

¶36

-:5:-

¶37

BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J.

¶38

--------------------------------------Crl.M.C.No.87 of 2024

¶39

Dated this the 14^th day of February, 2024

¶40

ORDER

¶41

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

¶42

Petitioners are accused Nos. 1 to 8 in S.C. No.44/2019 on the files of the District Sessions Court, Pathanamthitta, arising out of Crime No.971/2013 Enathu Police Station, Pathanamthitta District, registered for the offences under Sections 143, 147, 323, 324, 452 and 308 r/w Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Respondents 3 to 10 are the defacto complainant and the injured witnesses.

¶43

According to the prosecution, on 4.11.2013, at 8.30 pm, the accused had formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and assaulted the defacto complainant and others with an iron rod and thereby committed the offences alleged.

¶44

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

¶45

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

¶46

Crl.M.C.No.87 of 2024

¶47

-:6:-

¶48

proceedings.

¶49

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

¶50

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].

¶51

I have perused Annexure-2 to Annexure-9 affidavits filed by respondents 3 to 10. 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 proceedings will only be an exercise in futility.

¶52

Accordingly, all proceedings against the petitioners in S.C. No.44/2019 on the files of the Sessions Court, Pathanamthitta, are quashed.

¶53

This Crl.M.C is allowed as above.

¶54

Sd/-

¶55

BECHU KURIAN THOMAS JUDGE

¶56

Jka/14.02.24.

¶57

Crl.M.C.No.87 of 2024

¶58

-:7:-

¶59

APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 87/2024

¶60

PETITIONERS’ ANNEXURES

¶61

`Annexure-1`	`THE CERTIFIED C`	`OPY OF THE FINAL`
	`REPORT/CHARGE SHEET` `OF ENATHU POLICE` `DISTRICT.`	`IN CRIME NO. 971/ 2013` `STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA`
`Annexure-2`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE` `3RD RESPONDENT.`	`AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE`
`Annexure-3`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE` `4TH RESPONDENT.`	`AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE`
`Annexure-4`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE` `5TH RESPONDENT`	`AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE`
`Annexure-5`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE` `6TH RESPONDENT`	`AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE`
`Annexure-6`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE` `7TH RESPONDENT`	`AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE`
`Annexure-7`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE` `8TH RESPONDENT`	`AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE`
`Annexure-8`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE` `9TH RESPONDENT`	`AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE`
`Annexure-9`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE` `10TH RESPONDENT`	`AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE`

Sarath v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sarath 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

Shaji Bennachan Vs State of Kerala

Chellamma Vs State of Kerala

Faisal Palothu @ Vanti Mash Vs the Sub Inspector of Police

Rosy Thomas Vs State of Kerala

Dilshad Ali Vs State of Kerala

Sumayya Abdul Jabar Mehabubu Vs State of Kerala