Vineesh vs State of Kerala

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Jun 22, 2022

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1441150

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/1441150
Court: Kerala High Court
Judge: Honourable Mr.Justice Ziyad Rahman a.a.
Decided On: Jun 22, 2022
Case Number: Crl.MC/154/2022

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Vineesh

Respondent

State of Kerala

Excerpt

.....having come up for admission on 22.06.2022, the court on the same day passed the following: crl.m.c.no.154/22 2orderthe petitioners are the accused in crime no.1640/21 of poovar police station, which was registered for the offences punishable under sections 341, 294(b), 323, 324, 427 read with section 34 ipc.2. the prosecution case is that, on 22.07.2021 at 6.30 pm,the petitioner wrongfully restrained the 2 nd respondent, abused him and assaulted him. annexure-a is the fir submitted by the police. this crl.m.c. is filed for quashing all further proceedings pursuant to annexure-a.3. heard sri.ajith krishnan, learned counsel for the petitioners, sri.c.s.hrithwik, learned public prosecutor for the state and sri.s.mohammed al rafi, learned counsel for the 2nd4. during the pendency of this crl. m.c. mediation wasconducted between the parties, and as part of the same, the petitioners and the 2nd respondent appeared before the high court mediation centre on 15.06.2022. during the course of mediation, the parties expressed their willingness to settle the matter, and a memorandum of settlement was also entered into between them. the mediator submitted a report along with the aforesaidcrl.m.c.no.154/22 3 memorandum of settlement, wherein the 2 nd respondent had conveyed his no objection in quashing the prosecution against the petitioners herein, as he has no subsisting grievance. this indicates that annexure b affidavit sworn by the 2 nd respondent was voluntarily, and the same can be acted upon for quashing the proceedings.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 cr.p.c. this is mainly because, on account of the settlement, no fruitful purpose would be served by allowing the prosecution to continue.in.....

Full Judgment

Crl.M.C.No.154/22 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A. WEDNESDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 1ST ASHADHA, 1944 CRL.MC NO. 154 OF 2022 PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO.1 AND 2: 1 VINEESH, AGED 28 YEARS, 2 VINEETH, AGED 26 YEARS, BY ADV AJITH KRISHNAN RESPONDENTS/STATE & COMPLAINANT: 1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 682 031. 2 SASI, AGED 62 YEARS, S/O.PONNAN, GREENALAND, AAYIRUMTHAI DESOM, KANCHAMPAZHANJI P. O., POOVAR VILLAGE, NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 525. BY ADV S.MOHAMMED AL RAFI SRI.C.S HRITHWIK SR.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22.06.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Crl.M.C.No.154/22 2

ORDER

The petitioners are the accused in Crime No.1640/21 of Poovar Police Station, which was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 294(b), 323, 324, 427 read with Section 34 IPC.

2. The prosecution case is that, on 22.07.2021 at 6.30 pm,

the petitioner wrongfully restrained the 2 nd respondent, abused him and assaulted him. Annexure-A is the FIR submitted by the police. This Crl.M.C. is filed for quashing all further proceedings pursuant to Annexure-A.

3. Heard Sri.Ajith Krishnan, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri.C.S.Hrithwik, learned Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri.S.Mohammed Al Rafi, learned counsel for the 2nd

4. During the pendency of this Crl. M.C. mediation was

conducted between the parties, and as part of the same, the petitioners and the 2nd respondent appeared before the High Court Mediation Centre on 15.06.2022. During the course of mediation, the parties expressed their willingness to settle the matter, and a memorandum of settlement was also entered into between them. The mediator submitted a report along with the aforesaid

Crl.M.C.No.154/22 3 memorandum of settlement, wherein the 2 nd respondent had conveyed his no objection in quashing the prosecution against the petitioners herein, as he has no subsisting grievance. This indicates that Annexure B affidavit sworn by the 2 nd respondent was voluntarily, and the same can be acted upon for quashing the proceedings.

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 Cr.P.C. This is mainly because, on account of the settlement, no fruitful purpose would be served by allowing the prosecution to continue.

In the result, this Crl. M.C. is allowed, and Annexure-A FIR submitted in Crime No.1640 of 2021 of Poovar Police Station, and all further proceedings against the petitioners are hereby quashed. Sd/- ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A. JUDGE DG/23.6.22 Crl.M.C.No.154/22 4 APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 154/2022 PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIRST INFORMATION REPORT IN CRIME NO.1640/2021 OF POOVAR POLICE STATION. Annexure B NOTARIZED AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 2ND

Same Court & Year Kerala · 2022 Same Parties Vineesh vs State of Kerala Same Judge Honourable Mr.Justice Ziyad Rahman a.a.