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.

Johny vs State of Kerala

JOHNY vs State of Kerala

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Mar 05, 2024
~3 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1309981

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/1618/2024

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

JOHNY

Respondent

State of Kerala

Excerpt

.....attingal arisingout of crime no.19/2021 of chirayinkeezhu police station,thiruvananthapuram district registered for the offences under sections 341, 324 amd 294(b) r/w section 34 of the indian penal code, 1860. the 2nd respondent is the defacto complainant.3. according to the prosecution, the accused had, on 01.01.2021 assaulted the defacto complainant and abused 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 thematter 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 [(2012) 10 scc 303], theapex 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 v. state of punjab [(2014) 6 scc 466] and yogendra yadav and others v. state of jharkhand and another [(2014) 9 scc 653].7. i have perused annexure a3 affidavit filed by the 2ndrespondent. the learned public prosecutor has submitted that upon verification, it is understood that the affidavit is genuine, and the defacto 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.9. accordingly, all proceedings against the petitioners in c.c.no.1676/2021 on the files of the judicial first class magistrate court-iii, attingal are quashed. this crl.m.c is allowed. sd/ bechu kurian thomas judge jm/ appendix of crl.mc 1618/2024 petitioner.....

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS TUESDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 15TH PHALGUNA, 1945 CRIME NO.19/2021 OF Chirayinkeezhu Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN CC NO.1676 OF 2021 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS - III, ATTINGAL (TEMPORARY) PETITIONER/S:

1 JOHNY AGED 28 YEARS S/O ALBI,KUTTIVILAKATHIL VEEDU, SOUTH ARAYATHURUTHI. 2 FRANCIS DILSON AGED 33 YEARS S/O DILSON,SHIJU MANDIRAM,NEAR FATIMA CONVENT SCHOOL 3 JUSTIN. A AGED 23 YEARS S/O ANIL JOSEPH,KADAVIL VEEDU, PUTHUKKARI CHIRAYINKEEZHU P.O.,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -695304, PIN - 695304 4 SANAL. A AGED 25 YEARS S/O ANIL JOSEPH,KADAVIL VEEDU, PUTHUKKARI CHIRAYINKEEZHU P.O.,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695304 BY ADVS. CHRISTINE MATHEW AISWARYA E J VETTIKOMPIL SEN C PUTHUPPARAMPIL

RESPONDENT/S: 1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031 2 SHIBIN YESUDAS, AGED 30 YEARS S/ 0 YESUDAS RESIDING ATST MARYS HOUSE, NR CHOVVAZHCHA PALLI, SARKARA VILLAGE, THEKKE ARAYATHURUTHI, BY ADV ABESH ALOSIOUS OTHER PRESENT: SMT. SREEJA V. (PP) THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05.03.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J.

==================== Crl.M.C.No.1618 of 2024 ===================== Dated this the 5th 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 4 in C.C.No.1676/2021 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-III, Attingal arising

out of Crime No.19/2021 of Chirayinkeezhu Police Station,Thiruvananthapuram District registered for the offences under Sections 341, 324 amd 294(b) r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The 2nd respondent is the defacto complainant.

3. According to the prosecution, the accused had, on 01.01.2021 assaulted the defacto complainant and abused 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 [(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 v. State of Punjab [(2014) 6 SCC 466] and Yogendra Yadav and Others v. State of Jharkhand and Another [(2014) 9 SCC 653].

7. I have perused Annexure A3 affidavit filed by the 2nd

respondent. The learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that upon verification, it is understood that the affidavit is genuine, and the defacto 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.

9. Accordingly, all proceedings against the petitioners in C.C.No.1676/2021 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-III, Attingal are quashed. This Crl.M.C is allowed. sd/ BECHU KURIAN THOMAS JUDGE jm/ APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 1618/2024 PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure A1 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIRST INFORMATION REPORT IN CRIME NO. 19/2021 OF CHIRAYINKEEZHU POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT DATED 04.01.2021

Annexure A2 . A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE CHARGE SHEET IN CRIME NO. 19/2021 OF CHIRAYINKEEZHU POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT DATED 08.04.2021 Annexure 3 . A DULY ATTESTED AFFIDAVIT EXECUTED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT HEREIN DATED 10.02.2024

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial