Vincent Vs. State of Kerala

Vincent vs State of Kerala

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Jan 30, 2013

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1015396

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1015396
Court: Kerala High Court
Judge: Honourable Mr.Justice T.R.Ramachandran Nair
Decided On: Jan 30, 2013
Subject: Education

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Education

Key legal issue: Education

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Vincent

Respondent

State of Kerala

Excerpt

.....court, thrissur. the said crime was registered based on a complaint filed by the 2nd respondent herein against the petitioner and another accused alleging commission of offences punishable under sections 120(b), 406, 420 and 506(1) read with section 34 of indian penal code. annexure a is a copy of the first information report and annexure b is a copy of the charge sheet. as the petitioner was not available for trial, the case was split up and is now numbered as c.c.no.124/2012. the other accused was acquitted as evident from annexure c judgment.2. learned counsel for the parties namely, the petitioner and the respondents 2 and 3 submitted that there is a settlement between the parties herein with regard to the matter. it is also submitted that in the light of the judgment annexure c also, the crl.m.c.no.222/2013 2 relief sought for is liable to be granted.3. a reading of paragraph 7 of the judgment, annexure c will show that pw2 therein is the additional 3rd respondent herein. it will also show that after analysing the evidence of pw2, the court below observed that at the time of her examination by the court, it was brought out that the matter was settled between the parties out of court and the parties had turned hostile to the prosecution. ultimately it was observed as follows: "......really in the light of the testimony of pw1 and pw2 there is no need to proceed with the trial of the case.....".4. therefore, the substratum of the prosecution case has already been shattered. apart from the same, there is a settlement between the parties as evident from the pleadings and from the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the respondents 2 and 3. learned public prosecutor also submitted that there is a settlement between the parties.5. in the light of the above, there will not be any chance crl.m.c.no.222/2013 3 for a successful prosecution and this court will be justified in quashing the proceedings.....

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR WEDNESDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF JANUARY 2013 10TH MAGHA 193 Crl.MC.No. 222 of 2013 () ------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN CC.124/2012 of CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT,THRISSUR CRIME NO. 331/2008 OF TOWN EAST POLICE STATION , TRISSUR ------------------- PETITIONER/ACCUSED: -------------------- VINCENT AGED 4 YEARS,S/O. SKARIA,KALAPURAKKAL HOUSE PANANCHERY VILLAGE,THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADVS.SRI.P.SANTHOSH (PODUVAL) SMT.R.RAJITHA RESPNDENTS/STATE AND DEFACTO COMPLAINANT: ------------------------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM”

031.

2. GIRISH KUMAR S/O. KUMARAN,KURUVATH HOUSE,AKAMPADAM DESOM WADAKKANCHERY,THRISSUR ”

001. ADDL.R3 IMPLEADED ----------------- REKHA GIREESHKUMAR, W/O.GIREESHKUMAR KURUVATH HOUSE, AKAMPADAM DESOM, WADAKKANCHERRY, THRISSUR. ADDL.R3 IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 30 1.2013 IN CRL.M.A.1104/2013 R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.V.H.JASMINE RADDL.3 BY ADV. SRI.M.REVIKRISHNAN THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30-01-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: VK Crl.MC.No. 222 of 2013 () ------------------------- APPENDIX --------- PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES ---------------------- ANNEXURE-A. COPY OF FIR IN CRIME NO.331/2008, THRISSUR TOWN EAST POLICE STATION. ANNEXURE B. COPY OF CHARGE SHEET IN CRIME NO.331/2008, THRISSUR TOWN EAST POLICE STATION. ANNEXURE C. COPY OF JUDGMENT IN CC 205/2008 BEFORE THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, THRISSUR, DATED 6 6.2012. ANNEXURE D. AN AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT ANNEXURE E. COPY OF AFFIDAVIT OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT RESPONDENT' EXHIBITS : NIL -------------------- / TRUE COPY / P.A. TO JUDGE VK T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J.

--------------------------------------- Crl. M.C. No.222 OF 201.--------------------------------------- Dated this the 30th day of January, 2013. ORDER

The prayer in the Crl.M.C is to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.124/2012 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Thrissur. The said crime was registered based on a complaint filed by the 2nd respondent herein against the petitioner and another accused alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 120(B), 406, 420 and 506(1) read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. Annexure A is a copy of the First Information Report and Annexure B is a copy of the charge sheet. As the petitioner was not available for trial, the case was split up and is now numbered as C.C.No.124/2012. The other accused was acquitted as evident from Annexure C judgment.

2. Learned counsel for the parties namely, the petitioner and the respondents 2 and 3 submitted that there is a settlement between the parties herein with regard to the matter. It is also submitted that in the light of the judgment Annexure C also, the Crl.M.C.No.222/2013 2 relief sought for is liable to be granted.

3. A reading of paragraph 7 of the judgment, Annexure C will show that PW2 therein is the additional 3rd respondent herein. It will also show that after analysing the evidence of PW2, the court below observed that at the time of her examination by the court, it was brought out that the matter was settled between the parties out of court and the parties had turned hostile to the prosecution. Ultimately it was observed as follows: "......Really in the light of the testimony of PW1 and PW2 there is no need to proceed with the trial of the case.....".

4. Therefore, the substratum of the prosecution case has already been shattered. Apart from the same, there is a settlement between the parties as evident from the pleadings and from the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the respondents 2 and 3. Learned Public Prosecutor also submitted that there is a settlement between the parties.

5. In the light of the above, there will not be any chance Crl.M.C.No.222/2013 3 for a successful prosecution and this Court will be justified in quashing the proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C in the light of the decisions of the Apex Court in Joshi vs. State of Haryana (2003 (2) KLT 106.(SC)) and in Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab (2012 (4) KLT 10.(SC)). Accordingly, the Crl.M.C is allowed and the proceedings in C.C.No.124/2012 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Thrissur as regards the petitioner will stand quashed. T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR JUDGE smp

Same Court & Year Kerala · 2013 Same Parties Vincent vs State of Kerala Same Subject Education Same Judge Honourable Mr.Justice T.R.Ramachandran Nair