Jose John vs State of Kerala

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Mar 01, 2024

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1321326

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/1321326
Court: Kerala High Court
Judge: Honourable Mr.Justice P.G. Ajithkumar
Decided On: Mar 01, 2024
Case Number: Crl.MC/11248/2023

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Jose John

Respondent

State of Kerala

Excerpt

.....and 354 r/w section 34 of the indian penal code, 1860.3. the case of the prosecution is as follows :- on 16.08.2020 at about 9.30 p.m the accused in furtherance of theircommon intention trespassed into the house of the 2 nd respondent, who is the defacto complainant and inside the house, the 3 rd respondent was manhandled causing him injuries. the 2 nd respondent intervened and then she was also assaulted by the 1st petitioner. they have allegedly outraged the modesty of the 2nd respondent also. thereby, the petitioners committed the offences alleged.4. heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondent,s 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 and another [(2012) 10scc 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. respondent nos.2 and 3 filed annexures-ii and iii affidavits.the learned public prosecutor has submitted that upon verification, it is understood that the affidavits are genuine, and respondents 2 and 3 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.accordingly, this crl.m.c is allowed. further proceedings against the petitioners in c.c.no.740 of.....

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR FRIDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 11TH PHALGUNA, 1945 CRIME NO.1979/2020 OF Chadayamanagalam Police Station, Kollam AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN CC NO.740 OF 2021 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, KADAKKAL PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.1 TO 5:-

1 JOSE JOHN, AGED 41 YEARS S/O. YOHANNAN, JIMS VILLA, PARAPPARA.P.O., VITHURA, CHADAYAMANGALAM, KOLLAM., PIN - 691534 2 RAJAN, AGED 53 YEARS S/O. THAMPI, AYOORKKONAM KUNNUVILA HOUSE, RADHAKRISHNA LANE, VAZHAYILA, PEROORKKADA., PIN - 695005 3 VINOD, AGED 36 YEARS S/O. EBANEZAR, EV BHAVAN, PERILI, MANNOORKONAM.P.O., KARIPPUR, KOLLAM, PIN - 691534 4 NASIMUDHEEN, AGED 43 YEARS S/O. HASSAN BABU,, NIZAM MANZIL, PETTAYIL, PAPPADI, THOLIKKODE.P.O., CHADAYAMANGALAM, KOLLAM, PIN - 691534 BY ADVS. K.K.DHEERENDRAKRISHNAN N.P.ASHA

RESPONDENTS/STATE & VICTIMS :-

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031 2 ANSILA, W/O. NOUFAL, ANSILA, MANZIL, CHIRAKKAL LAKSHAM VEEDU COLONY, MENAKULAM, KADINAMKULAM, CHADAYAMANGALAM, KOLLAM., PIN - 691534 3 NOUFAL, S/O. SHAHUL HAMEED, KUNNUMPURATHU VEEDU, MANNOTTUKONAM, THOLICODE, NEDUMANGAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,, PIN - 695541 BY SR.PRASHANTH M.P, PP THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON

01.03.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

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 5 in C.C.No.740 of 2021 on

the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kadakkal, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 323, 341, 451 and 354 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

3. The case of the prosecution is as follows :- On 16.08.2020 at about 9.30 p.m the accused in furtherance of their

common intention trespassed into the house of the 2 nd respondent, who is the defacto complainant and inside the house, the 3 rd respondent was manhandled causing him injuries. The 2 nd respondent intervened and then she was also assaulted by the 1st petitioner. They have allegedly outraged the modesty of the 2nd respondent also. Thereby, the petitioners committed the offences alleged.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondent,s 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. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 filed Annexures-II and III affidavits.

The learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that upon verification, it is understood that the affidavits are genuine, and respondents 2 and 3 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.

Accordingly, this Crl.M.C is allowed. Further proceedings against the petitioners in C.C.No.740 of 2021 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kadakkal, are quashed.

Sd/- P.G. AJITHKUMAR JUDGE SMA APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 11248/2023 PETITIONER ANNEXURES :- Annexure-I CERTIFIED COPY OF FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO. 1979/2023 OF CHADAYAMANGALAM POLICE STATION, KOLLAM DISTRICT Annexure-II NOTARIZED AFFIDAVIT DATED 19.12.2023 SWORN BY THE RESPONDENT NO. 2 BEFORE THE NOTARY PUBLIC Annexure-III NOTARIZED AFFIDAVIT DATED 19.12.2023 SWORN BY THE RESPONDENT NO. 3 BEFORE THE NOTARY PUBLIC

Same Court & Year Kerala · 2024 Same Parties Jose John vs State of Kerala Same Judge Honourable Mr.Justice P.G. Ajithkumar