Jibin Thomas, vs State of Kerala,

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Apr 04, 2022

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1441265

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/1441265
Court: Kerala High Court
Judge: Honourable Mr.Justice Ziyad Rahman a.a.
Decided On: Apr 04, 2022
Case Number: Crl.MC/174/2022

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Jibin Thomas,

Respondent

State of Kerala,

Excerpt

..... by the 2nd respondent for the offences punishable under sections 294(b),323,341 r/w. section 34 of theindian penal code (ipc).2. the prosecution case is that the 2ndrespondent-defacto complainant was abused and assaulted by the petitioners herein on 9.2.2016. annexure-a is the f.i.r. and annexure-b is the final report in this case.3. heard sri. t.p.pradeep, the learnedcounsel appearing for the petitioners, sri. sudheer gopalakrishnan, the learned public prosecutor for the 1st respondent and sri. crl.mc no.174/2022 3k.k.unni, the learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent-defacto complainant.4. the prayer for quashing the proceedings issought mainly for the reason that the dispute between the parties has been settled and to substantiate the same, annexure-c affidavit sworn by 2nd respondent is produced. the fact of settlement is acknowledged in the aforesaid affidavit and it is also specifically stated that the 2nd respondent has no subsisting grievances against the petitioners herein. the 2nd respondent also clearly expressed his no objection in quashing the proceedings against the petitioners. the learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent also confirms the aforesaid settlement and supports the prayer sought for by the petitioners herein.5. on going through the nature of allegationsas contained in annexure-b final report, it can be seen that the dispute is basically private in crl.mc no.174/2022 4 nature. no serious offences are attributed against the petitioners. considering the settlement arrived at between the parties, the chances of a successful prosecution are very bleak, and hence no fruitful purpose would be served if the proceedings are allowed to continue. therefore, i am of the view that going by the decision in gian singh v. state of punjab and another.....

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A. MONDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF APRIL 2022 / 14TH CHAITHRA, 1944 CRL.MC NO. 174 OF 2022 [TO QUASH PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.1310/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-1, PATHANAMTHITTA ARISING OUT OF CRIME NO.261/2016 OF ARANMULA POLICE STATION] PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.1 TO 4:
1 JIBIN THOMAS,AGED 26 YEARS S/O.GEORGE THOMAS, ILAVUMMOOTTIL LAKKUR, MALLASSERI P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN-689 646. 2 MIDUN PRAKASH, AGED 24 YEARS S/O.PRAKASH, HARIJAN COLONY, BLOCK NO.15, MEZHUVELI P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN-689 507. 3 ABHIJITH SASIDHARAN PILLA, AGED 24 YEARS S/O.SASIDHARAN PILLAI, KOLATTIL HOUSE, IRAVIPEROOR P.O., THIRUVALLA, PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN-689 542. 4 SIBI THOMAS, S/O.THOMAS ABRAHAM, NEDUMKADAVIL HOUSE, KANJITTUMKARA P.O., AYIROOR SOUTH, PIN-689 611. BY ADVS. T.P.PRADEEP P.K.SATHEES KUMAR R.K.PRASANTH
RESPONDENTS/STATE AND DEFACTO COMPLAINANT: 1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA- 682 031. 2 BIBIN,AGED 25 YEARS S/O.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, CHARIVUPARAMBIL PUTHEN VEETTIL, NALLOORMURI, MALAYALAPPUZHA VILLAGE, PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN- 689 666. FOR R2 BY ADV K.K.UNNI OTHER PRESENT: FOR R1 BY ADV. SUDHEER GOPALAKRISHANAN - PP THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04.04.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: CRL.MC No.174/2022 2

O R D E R

The petitioners are the accused numbers 1 to 4 in Crime No.261/2016 of Aranmula Police Station, which is pending as C.C.No.1310/2016 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-1, Pathanamthitta. The aforesaid crime was registered

based     on    the     information        submitted      by     the    2nd
respondent       for     the     offences        punishable           under
Sections       294(b),323,341          r/w.     Section    34    of    the

Indian Penal Code (IPC).

2. The prosecution case is that the 2nd

respondent-defacto complainant was abused and assaulted by the petitioners herein on 9.2.2016. Annexure-A is the F.I.R. and Annexure-B is the final report in this case.

3. Heard Sri. T.P.Pradeep, the learned

counsel        appearing       for       the    petitioners,           Sri.
Sudheer        Gopalakrishnan,            the      learned           Public
Prosecutor        for     the     1st     respondent           and     Sri.
CRL.MC No.174/2022                   3

K.K.Unni, the learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent-defacto complainant.

4. The prayer for quashing the proceedings is

sought mainly for the reason that the dispute between the parties has been settled and to substantiate the same, Annexure-C affidavit sworn by 2nd respondent is produced. The fact of settlement is acknowledged in the aforesaid affidavit and it is also specifically stated that the 2nd respondent has no subsisting grievances against the petitioners herein. The 2nd respondent also clearly expressed his no objection in quashing the proceedings against the petitioners. The learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent also confirms the aforesaid settlement and supports the prayer sought for by the petitioners herein.

5. On going through the nature of allegations

as contained in Annexure-B final report, it can be seen that the dispute is basically private in CRL.MC No.174/2022 4 nature. No serious offences are attributed against the petitioners. Considering the settlement arrived at between the parties, the chances of a successful prosecution are very bleak, and hence no fruitful purpose would be served if the proceedings are allowed to continue. Therefore, I am of the view that going by the decision in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Another [2012(4)KLT 108], this is a fit case in which the powers of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be invoked. Accordingly this Crl.M.C. is allowed. All further proceedings in C.C.No.1310/2016 pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court- 1, Pathanamthitta pursuant to Crime No.261/2016 of Aranmula Police Station are hereby quashed.

Sd/- ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A., JUDGE pkk CRL.MC No.174/2022 5 PPENDIX OF CRL.MC 174/2022 PETITIONER’S ANNEXURES: Annexure A CERTIFIED COPY OF FIR NO.261/2016 OF ARANMULA POLICE STATION. Annexure B CERTIFIED COPY OF CC NO.1310/2016 ON THE FILES OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-1, PATHANAMTITTA. Annexure C TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT OF THE DEFACTO COMPLAINANT.

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