Antony vs State of Kerala

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided May 31, 2024

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1325109

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/1325109
Court: Kerala High Court
Judge: Honourable Mr. Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas
Decided On: May 31, 2024
Case Number: Crl.MC/4003/2024

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Antony

Respondent

State of Kerala

Excerpt

.....against them.2. petitioners are accused nos. 1 and 2 in crime no. 386/2024of anthikad police station, thrissur registered for the offences under sections 341, 323, 324 and 308 r/w section 34 of the indian penal code, 1860. 3rd respondent is the defacto complainant and the injured witnesses3. according to the prosecution, the accused had on 02.04.2024, due to the previous enmity attacked the defacto complainant after retraining him and thereby committed the offences alleged.4. heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondents, 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 :3: 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 defacto complainant 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. though the learned public prosecutor pointed out that thereare two criminal antecedents as against the 1st petitioner and one case against the 2nd petitioner, which statement was opposed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, i am of the view that taking into consideration the nature settlement arrived at between the parties no purpose would achieved by continuing the case in view of the settlement arrived at between the parties.8. i have perused annexure 2 affidavit filed by 3rd respondent.the learned public prosecutor has submitted that upon verification, :4: it is understood that the affidavit is genuine, and.....

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS FRIDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF MAY 2024 / 10TH JYAISHTA, 1946 CRL.MC NO. 4003 OF 2024 CRIME NO.386/2024 OF ANTHIKAD POLICE STATION, THRISSUR PETITIONERS/ ACCUSED NO. 1&2: 1 ANTONY AGED 46 YEARS,S/O JACOB , THERMADOM HOUSE, MAGATTUKARA DESOM, PADIYAM VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680 641. 2 DINSHA AGED 36 YEARS, S/O MOHANAN, THAYAMKULANGARA HOUSE, MAGATTUKARA DESOM, PADIYAM VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT., PIN - 680 641. BY ADV RAJESH CHAKYAT RESPONDENTS/ STATE I.O. & DE-FACTO COMPLAINANT:

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682 031. 2 THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE ANTHIKKAD POLICE STATION, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680 641. 3 AKSHAY AGED 26 YEARS, S/O SADASIVAN, KARUMAMPARAMBIL HOUSE, KANJANY, MANALUR, THRISSUR, PIN - 680 612. BY ADVS. JOSEPH M.P.,FOR R3 ASHI M.C., PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31.05.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: :2: BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J ---------------------------------------------------- Crl.M.C.No. 4003 of 2024 ---------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 31st day of May, 2024

ORDER

Petitioners have invoked the jurisdiction under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code to quash all proceedings against them.

2. Petitioners are accused Nos. 1 and 2 in Crime No. 386/2024

of Anthikad Police Station, Thrissur registered for the offences under Sections 341, 323, 324 and 308 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 3rd Respondent is the defacto complainant and the injured witnesses

3. According to the prosecution, the accused had on 02.04.2024, due to the previous enmity attacked the defacto complainant after retraining him and thereby committed the offences alleged.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondents, 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 :3: 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 defacto complainant 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. Though the learned Public Prosecutor pointed out that there

are two criminal antecedents as against the 1st petitioner and one case against the 2nd petitioner, which statement was opposed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the view that taking into consideration the nature settlement arrived at between the parties no purpose would achieved by continuing the case in view of the settlement arrived at between the parties.

8. I have perused Annexure 2 affidavit filed by 3rd respondent.

The learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that upon verification, :4: 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

Crime No. 386/2024 of Anthikad Police Station, Thrissur are quashed. This Criminal Miscellaneous case is allowed as above. Sd/- BECHU KURIAN THOMAS SCB JUDGE :5: APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 4003/2024 PETITIONERS ANNEXURES ANNEXURE 1 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.386/2024 OF ANTHIKKAD POLICE STATION, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

ANNEXURE 2                  ORIGINAL    COPY    OF    THE    COMPOUNDING
                            AFFIDAVIT    EXECUTED    BY    THE   DEFACTO
                            COMPLAINANT/CW1/3RD      RESPONDENT    DATED

27.04.2024.

Same Court & Year Kerala · 2024 Same Parties Antony vs State of Kerala Same Judge Honourable Mr. Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas