Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Rahul Vs. State of Kerala

Rahul vs State of Kerala

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Oct 29, 2013
~4 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1096391

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

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Kerala High Court
Judge
Decided On
Subject
Education

Case Summary

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

Education

Key legal issue
Education

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Rahul

Respondent

State of Kerala

Excerpt

.....to judge. prv. p.bhavadasan, j.- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - crl.m.c. no. 4719 of 2013 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - dated this the 29th day of october, 2013 order this is a petition filed under section 482 of cr.p.c. seeking to have all further proceedings in s.c. no. 414 of 2012 pending before the principal sessions court, kottayam quashed.2. it is unnecessary to go into the facts and details of the case for the simple reason that the petitioner has chosen to implead the respondents 2, 3 and 4 among whom respondents 2 and 4 are the parents of the 3rd respondent who is the victim. the three respondents made mention of above are represented by a counsel who accepts that parties have settled the differences and issues between them and the affidavits filed in support of the petition are sworn to by the respective parties.3. on going through the contents of the affidavit, it is seen that the parties have amicably settled the matter and crl.m.c. no. 4719 of 2013 -2- there is a proposal for the victim that the victim to be married by the petitioner. it is pointed out that neither the victim nor the parents is interested in prosecuting the matter further and they want to give a quietus to the issue.4. in the light of the settlement arrived at between the parties and in the light of the fact that defacto complainant and the victim do not wish to proceed with the matter, it is felt that the continuance of proceedings will be only a exercise in futility. in the result, this petition is allowed. all further proceedings in s.c. no. 414 of 2012 pending before the principal sessions court, kottayam including the final report which arose out of crime no. 475 of 2012 of kaduthuruthy police station shall stand quashed and the petitioner shall stand discharged. p.bhavadasan judge ds

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN TUESDAY, THE29H DAY OF OCTOBER20137TH KARTHIKA, 1935 Crl.MC.No. 4719 of 2013 (B) --------------------------------------- [S.C. NO.414/2012 OF THE PRL. SESSIONS COURT, KOTTAYAM, CRIME NO. 475/2012 OF KADUTHURUTHI POLICE STATION , KOTTAYAM DISTRICT] ................. PETITIONER/ACCUSED: ---------------------------------- RAHUL, AGED21YEARS, S/O. LATE GOPAKUMAR, NIRAPPUKALAYIL HOUSE, NEAR RAILWAY GATE ADICHIRA, MUDIYOORKARA KARA, PERUMBAIKKADU VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.NIREESH MATHEW. RESPONDENTS/STATE, DEFACTO COMPLAINANT (CW-1), VICTIM (CW-2) AND MOTHER OF THE VICTIM (CW-3): -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 682 031.

2. MURUKAN, AGED43YEARS, S/O. PONNAYYAN, ENACHIRA HOUSE, PARAMBRAM KARA - 686 613, MUTTACHIRA VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.

3. DIVYA, AGED18YEARS, D/O. MURUKAN, ENACHIRA HOUSE, PARAMBRAM KARA - 686 613, MUTTUCHIRA VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.

4. CHANDRIKA, AGED43YEARS, W/O. MURUKAN, ENACHIRA HOUSE, PARAMBRAM KARA - 686 613, MUTTUCHIRA VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. DHANESH MATHEW MANJOORAN, R2 TO R4 BY ADV. SRI.N.P.PRAJEESH. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON2910-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Prv. CRL.M.C. NO.4719/2013-B: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES: ANNEXURE-A: COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO.475/2012 OF KADUTHURUTHY POLICE STATION. ANNEXURE-B: ORIGINAL OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN TO BY THE FATHER OF THE VICTIM, SRI. MURUKAN, THE2D RESPONDENT HEREIN, DTD. 19/10/2013. ANNEXURE-C: ORIGINAL OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN TO BY THE VICTIM, DIVYA, THE3D RESPONDENT HEREIN, DTD. 19/10/2013. ANNEXURE-D: ORIGINAL OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN TO BY THE MOTHER OF THE VICTIM, SMT. CHANDRIKA, THE4H RESPONDENT HEREIN, DTD. 19/10/2013. RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. Prv. P.BHAVADASAN, J.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.M.C. No. 4719 of 2013 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 29th day of October, 2013 ORDER

This is a petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking to have all further proceedings in S.C. No. 414 of 2012 pending before the Principal Sessions Court, Kottayam quashed.

2. It is unnecessary to go into the facts and details of the case for the simple reason that the petitioner has chosen to implead the respondents 2, 3 and 4 among whom respondents 2 and 4 are the parents of the 3rd respondent who is the victim. The three respondents made mention of above are represented by a counsel who accepts that parties have settled the differences and issues between them and the affidavits filed in support of the petition are sworn to by the respective parties.

3. On going through the contents of the affidavit, it is seen that the parties have amicably settled the matter and Crl.M.C. No. 4719 of 2013 -2- there is a proposal for the victim that the victim to be married by the petitioner. It is pointed out that neither the victim nor the parents is interested in prosecuting the matter further and they want to give a quietus to the issue.

4. In the light of the settlement arrived at between the parties and in the light of the fact that defacto complainant and the victim do not wish to proceed with the matter, it is felt that the continuance of proceedings will be only a exercise in futility. In the result, this petition is allowed. All further proceedings in S.C. No. 414 of 2012 pending before the Principal Sessions Court, Kottayam including the final report which arose out of Crime No. 475 of 2012 of Kaduthuruthy Police Station shall stand quashed and the petitioner shall stand discharged. P.BHAVADASAN JUDGE ds

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial