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.

Thyagarajan vs State of Kerala

Thyagarajan vs State of Kerala

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Jan 19, 2023
~5 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1374390

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/4997/2022

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Thyagarajan

Respondent

State of Kerala

Excerpt

.....accused nos.1 to 7 in crime no.895 of 2022 of puthoor police station, which was registered for the offences punishable under sections 143, 147, 148, 294(b), 341, 323, 324, 326, 308, 506 read with section 149 of ipc.2. the 6th respondent is the de facto complainant in this case.subsequently a report was submitted by the police deleting the offence under section 326 ipc. annexure-1 is the fir. this crl.m.c. is filed to quash all further proceedings pursuant to annexure-a1.3. heard, sri.shakthi prakash, learned counsel for the petitioners, sri.m.p.prashanth, learned public prosecutor for the state and sri.k.r.rajkumar, learned counsel for the respondents 3 to 14.4. prayer for quashing the proceedings is sought mainly on theground that the dispute between the parties has been settled. annexure-3 affidavit sworn by the 6th respondent/de facto complainant is filed along with this crl.m.c. to substantiate the settlement. in the said affidavit, the 6th respondent/de facto complainant had specifically acknowledged the aforesaid settlement and also conveyed the no- objection to quash the proceedings against the petitioners herein. the learned counsel appearing for the 6th respondent/de facto complainant crl.m.c.no.4997/22 6 also confirms the same. the learned public prosecutor, upon instructions, submitted that the station house officer concerned has verified the veracity of the same and found it to be genuine.5. the allegations would reveal that the dispute is purelyprivate in nature. in such circumstances, by applying the principles laid down by the honourable supreme court in gian singh v. state of punjab and another [(2012) 10 scc 303], proceedings can be quashed by invoking the powers of this court under section 482 of cr.p.c. this is particularly because, on account of the settlement, no fruitful purpose would be served by allowing the prosecution to continue.6. the learned public prosecutor pointed out that, even thoughrespondents 3 to 5 and 7 to 14 were shown as.....

Full Judgment

Crl.M.C.No.4997/22 1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A. THURSDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF JANUARY 2023 / 29TH POUSHA, 1944 CRL.MC NO. 4997 OF 2022 CRIME NO.0895/2022 OF PUTHOOR POLICE STATION, Kollam

PETITIONERS: 1 THYAGARAJAN, AGED 51 YEARS, S/O.SUKUMARAN, NANDANAM, KOTTATHALA P.O., KOLLAM, PIN - 691 566. 2 JISHNU, AGED 26 YEARS, S/O. PUSHPANGADAN, NISHANTH BHAVAN, KOTTATHALA, PIN - 691 566. 3 SURESH, AGED 50 YEARS, S/O.ANANDASAGARAN, BAIJU BHAVAN, KOTTATHALA, PIN - 691 566. 4 SHAJI B, AGED 45 YEARS, S/O.ANIL KUMAR, KAMBIKKATTUVADAKKATHIL, VENDAR P.O., PIN - 691 507. 5 BAIJU, AGED 45 YEARS, S/O.SUKUMARAN, CHARYAYIL VEEDU, VENAR P.O., PIN - 691 507. 6 SUJITH, AGED 36 YEARS, S/O.BHASKARAN, KIZHAKKEPARAYANKAALA, VENDAR P.O. KOLLAM, PIN - 691 507. Crl.M.C.No.4997/22 2 7 NISHANTH, AGED 34 YEARS, S/O.VASUDEVAN, SUJITH BHAVAN, VENDAR P.O. KOLLAM, PIN - 691 507. BY ADVS. SHAKTHI PRAKASH K.DHRUV KUMAR HARIKRISHNAN M.S. RESPONDENTS: 1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682 031. 2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER, PUTHOOR POLICE STATION, KOLLAM RURAL, PUTHOOR, PIN - 691 566. 3 SHINE, AGED 39 YEARS, SHARATH BHAVAN, THEVALAPPURAM, PUTHOOR, KOLLAM, PIN - 691 507.

4 JAYAKRISHNAN, AGED 21 YEARS, VATHIYILAZHIKATHU VEEDU, PUTHUNAMBALAM, KUNNATHUR, KOLLAM, PIN - 690 540.

5 VISHNU M @KOCHIKKA, AGED 30 YEARS, MANIMANDIRAM, PUTHANAMBALAM, KUNNATHUR, KOLLAM, PIN - 690 540. 6 MAHESH, AGED 21 YEARS, THEKKEPLATHARA VEEDU, IVERKALA, Crl.M.C.No.4997/22 3 PUTHOOR, KOLLAM, PIN - 691 507. 7 VINOD U.S, AGED 35 YEARS, THEKKEDATH, IVERKALA NADUVIL, IVERKALA, KOLLAM, PIN - 691 507. 8 VINEETH U.S, AGED 33 YEARS, THEKKEDATH, IVERKALA NADUVIL, IVERKALA, KOLLAM, PIN - 691 507. 9 ADARSH V, AGED 28 YEARS, PALAKOTTU, IVERKALA EAST P.O., KOLLAM, PIN - 691 507. 10 AKHIL CHANDRAN, AGED 29 YEARS, ARUN NIVAS, PUTHENAMBALAM, KUNNATHUR, KOLLAM, PIN - 690 540. 11 RAJESH M @REJI, AGED 50 YEARS, PLATHARA MELETHIL, IVERKALA EAST P.O., KOLLAM, PIN - 691 507. 12 A RATHEESH @ MATHAN, AGED 37 YEARS, NANDYATTU VEEDU, KUNNATHU EAST, KOLLAM, PIN - 690 540. 13 SANDEEP, AGED 32 YEARS, UTHRATTATHI, IVERKALA EAST P.O., KOLLAM, PIN - 691 507. 14 MANOJ A, AGED 40 YEARS, ROHINI HOUSE, AMBALATHUM BHAGOM, PORUVAZHI P.O., Crl.M.C.No.4997/22 4 KOLLAM, PIN - 690 520.

BY ADVS. SRI.M.P.PRASHANTH, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR K.R.RAJKUMAR JAGADEESH LAKSHMAN(K/000182/1994) RAHUL RAJ(K/692/2010) THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19.01.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Crl.M.C.No.4997/22 5

ORDER

The petitioners are the accused Nos.1 to 7 in Crime No.895 of 2022 of Puthoor Police Station, which was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 294(b), 341, 323, 324, 326, 308, 506 read with Section 149 of IPC.

2. The 6th respondent is the de facto complainant in this Case.

Subsequently a report was submitted by the Police deleting the offence under Section 326 IPC. Annexure-1 is the FIR. This Crl.M.C. is filed to quash all further proceedings pursuant to Annexure-A1.

3. Heard, Sri.Shakthi Prakash, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri.M.P.Prashanth, learned Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri.K.R.Rajkumar, learned counsel for the respondents 3 to 14.

4. Prayer for quashing the proceedings is sought mainly on the

ground that the dispute between the parties has been settled. Annexure-3 affidavit sworn by the 6th respondent/de facto complainant is filed along with this Crl.M.C. to substantiate the settlement. In the said affidavit, the 6th respondent/de facto complainant had specifically acknowledged the aforesaid settlement and also conveyed the no- objection to quash the proceedings against the petitioners herein. The learned counsel appearing for the 6th respondent/de facto complainant Crl.M.C.No.4997/22 6 also confirms the same. The learned Public Prosecutor, upon instructions, submitted that the Station House Officer concerned has verified the veracity of the same and found it to be genuine.

5. The allegations would reveal that the dispute is purely

private in nature. In such circumstances, by applying the principles laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Another [(2012) 10 SCC 303], proceedings can be quashed by invoking the powers of this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. This is particularly because, on account of the settlement, no fruitful purpose would be served by allowing the prosecution to continue.

6. The learned Public Prosecutor pointed out that, even though

respondents 3 to 5 and 7 to 14 were shown as respondents, affidavits of the said respondents were not seen incorporated. In response to the said submission, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the aforesaid respondents were impleaded in the party array in view of the fact that in connection with the very same incident Crime No.894 of 2022 was registered by the same police station, in which the respondents 3 to 14 were arrayed as the accused persons and the injured are the petitioners herein. Crl.M.C.No.5006 of 2022 is also filed by the petitioners therein to quash the proceedings therein, in view of Crl.M.C.No.4997/22 7 the mutual settlement between the parties who were impleaded as respondents. Moreover, it is also seen from the contents of the FIR that, the victim is the 6th respondent. In such circumstances, I deem it appropriate to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings on the basis of the affidavit filed by the 6th respondent and also taking note of the other relevant aspects. In the result, this Crl.M.C. is allowed, and Annexure-1 FIR submitted in Crime No.895 of 2022 of Puthoor Police Station and all further proceedings pursuant thereto, against the petitioners are hereby quashed. Sd/- ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A. JUDGE DG/20.01.23 Crl.M.C.No.4997/22 8 APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 4997/2022 PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure1 TRUE COPY OF FIR NO. 895 OF 2022 OF PUTHOOR POLICE STATION Annexure2 TRUE COPY OF FIR NO. 894 OF 2022 OF PUTHOOR POLICE STATION Annexure3 AFFIDAVIT OF THE 6TH RESPONDENT DE FACTO COMPLAINANT IN FIR NO. 895 OF 2022 OF PUTHOOR POLICE STATION DATED 21.07.2022

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial