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.

DIL Kumar vs State of Kerala

DIL Kumar vs State of Kerala

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Mar 07, 2024
~4 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1306668

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
Case Number
Crl.MC/1143/2024

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

DIL Kumar

Respondent

State of Kerala

Excerpt

.....prasanna vihar 1005, opposite high court, marine drive p.o, ernakulam, pin - 682 031. 3 sedrick mendez, aged 27 years s/o. joseph jude a mendez, robal colony, ayyapankavu, ernakulam north., pin - 682 018 by adv k.t.shyamkumarrespondent/state and de facto complainant : 1 state of kerala, represented by public prosecutor, high court of kerala, pin - 682031 2 sachinkuttan, aged 27 years, s/o. omanakuttan, sreelakshmi house north janatha road, palarivattom, ernakulam, pin - 682 025. sri.jai george, r2 sri. m.c. ashi (pp) this criminal misc. case having come up for admission on 07.03.2024, the court on the same day passed the following: bechu kurian thomas, j ......…............................................. crl.m.c. no.1143 of 2024 …................................................ dated this the 7th day of march, 2024orderpetitioners have invoked the jurisdiction under section 482 cr.p.c to quash all proceedings against them.2. petitioners are accused nos.1 to 3 in c.c.no.1674/2017 on thefiles of the judicial first class magistrate court-ii, ernakulam, arising out of crime no.2266/2015 of ernakulam central police station, registered for the offences punishable under sections 323, 324, and 341 r/w section 34 of the indian penal code,1860. the second respondent is the defacto complainant.3. according to the prosecution, accused had on 10.12.2015 restrained the defacto complainant, assaulted him, and thereby committed the offences alleged.4. heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondent, apart from the learned public prosecutor.5. the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the matterhas 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.6. in gian singh v. state of punjab and another [(2012) 10 scc303], the apex court has held that in appropriate.....

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS THURSDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 17TH PHALGUNA, CRL.MC NO. 1143 OF 2024 CRIME NO.2266/2015 OF ERNAKULAM CENTRAL POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN CC NO.1674 OF 2017 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -II, ERNAKULAM PETITIONER/ACCUSED NOS.1 TO 3: 1 DIL KUMAR, AGED 27 YEARS

S/O. BINDUMOL. T.G., NESTER PRIME ROSE, 1ST FLOOR, S N ROAD, KEERTHI NAGAR ELAMAKKARA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682 026. 2 DERRICK SHAJI, AGED 29 YEARS S/O A.D SHAJI AANJATTUPARABIL HOUSE, PRASANNA VIHAR 1005, OPPOSITE HIGH COURT, MARINE DRIVE P.O, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682 031. 3 SEDRICK MENDEZ, AGED 27 YEARS S/O. JOSEPH JUDE A MENDEZ, ROBAL COLONY, AYYAPANKAVU, ERNAKULAM NORTH., PIN - 682 018 BY ADV K.T.SHYAMKUMAR

RESPONDENT/STATE AND DE FACTO COMPLAINANT : 1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031 2 SACHINKUTTAN, AGED 27 YEARS, S/O. OMANAKUTTAN, SREELAKSHMI HOUSE NORTH JANATHA ROAD, PALARIVATTOM, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682 025. SRI.JAI GEORGE, R2 SRI. M.C. ASHI (PP) THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07.03.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J ......…............................................. Crl.M.C. No.1143 of 2024 …................................................ Dated this the 7th day of March, 2024

ORDER

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

2. Petitioners are accused Nos.1 to 3 in C.C.No.1674/2017 on the

files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Ernakulam, arising out of Crime No.2266/2015 of Ernakulam Central Police Station, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, and 341 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code,

1860. The second respondent is the defacto complainant.

3. According to the prosecution, accused had on 10.12.2015 restrained the defacto complainant, assaulted him, and thereby committed the offences alleged.

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

5. 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.

6. 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].

7. I have perused Annexure-A2 affidavit filed by the second

respondent. The learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that upon verification, it is understood that the affidavit is genuine, and the de facto complainant stands 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.

8. Though the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the third

petitioner is involved in four crimes, having regard to the nature of allegations in the present case and the settlement arrived at between the parties, no purpose would be achieved by continuing the prosecution. Accordingly, all proceedings against the petitioners in C.C.No.1674/2017 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Ernakulam, are quashed. This Crl.M.C is allowed as above. sd/- BECHU KURIAN THOMAS JUDGE AMV/12/03/2024 APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 1143/2024 PETITIONER ANNEXURES ANNEXURE A1 A TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME

NO:2266/2015 OF ERNAKULAM NORTH POLICE STATION WHICH IS NOW PENDING AS C. C. NO: 1674/2017 ON THE FILES OF JUDICIAL FIRST-CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-II, ERNAKULAM. ANNEXURE A2 THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 29.1.2024. TRUE COPY

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial