Sajeev vs State of Kerala

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Feb 08, 2022

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1442062

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/1442062
Court: Kerala High Court
Judge: Honourable Dr. Justice Kauser Edappagath
Decided On: Feb 08, 2022
Case Number: Crl.MC/251/2022

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Sajeev

Respondent

State of Kerala

Excerpt

.....annexure a final report in crime no.75/2010 of kallambalam police station on the ground of settlement between the parties.2. the petitioners are the accused nos.3, 5 and 6. the remaining accused were already acquitted. the respondent no.2 is the de facto complainant. the respondent nos.3 to 5 are the injured.3. the offences alleged against the petitioners are under sections 143, 147, 452, 323, 506(i) and 354 read with section 149 of the ipc.4. the respondent nos.2 to 5 entered appearance through counsel. affidavits sworn in by them are also produced.5. i have heard sri.shajin s.hameed, the learnedcounsel for the petitioners, sri.a.k.rajesh, the learned counsel for the respondent nos.2 to 5 and smt.t.v.neema, the learned senior public prosecutor for the respondent no.1. ..3..6. the averments in the petition as well as in theaffidavits sworn in by the respondent nos.2 to 5 would show that the entire dispute between the parties has been amicably settled and the de facto complainant has decided not to proceed with the crime further. the learned prosecutor, on instruction, submits that the matter was enquired into through the investigating officer and a statement of the de facto complainant was also recorded wherein she reported that the matter was amicably settled.7. the apex court in gian singh v. state of punjab[2012 (4) klt 108 (sc)], narinder singh and others v. state of punjab and others [(2014) 6 scc 466] and in state of madhya pradesh v. laxmi narayan and others [(2019) 5 scc 688] has held that the high court invoking s.482 of cr.p.c can quash criminal proceedings in relation to non compoundable offence where the parties have settled the matter between themselves notwithstanding the bar under s.320 of cr.p.c. if it is warranted in the given facts and circumstances of the case or to ensure ends of justice or to prevent abuse of process of any court. ..4..8. the dispute in the above case is purely personal innature. no public interest or harmony will be adversely.....

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH TUESDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022 / 19TH MAGHA, 1943 CRL.MC NO. 251 OF 2022 CRIME NO.75/2010 OF KALLAMBALAM POLICE STATION IN CC 1577/2019 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-III, ATTINGAL PETITIONERS/A1 TO A3:

1 SAJEEV, AGED 45 YEARS, S/O HARIHARAN, CHARUVILA VEEDU, NEAR MELEVILA TEMPLE, MANAMBOOR VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. 2 KIRANALAL @ MAANIKAN,. AGED 45 YEARS, S/O MADHU LAL, VALSALA VILASOM HOUSE, VALAKODUMALA, MANAMBOOR VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. 3 SREEKUMAR, AGED 44 YEARS, S/O MADHAVAN, PARAKETTIL HOUSE, NEAR MELEVILA TEMPLE, MANAMBOOR VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV SHAJIN S.HAMEED

RESPONDENTS/STATE/RESPONDENTS:

1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN- 682031. 2 SUJATHA, AGED 51 YEARS, D/O DEVAKI, S R BHAVAN, VALAKKOTTUMALA, MANAMPOOR VILLAGE, VARKALA TALUK, 3 RADHAKRISHNAN, AGED 60 YEARS,S/O RAMASWAMI ASARI, S R BHAVAN, VALAKKOTTUMALA, MANAMPOOR VILLAGE, VARKALA TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN- 695141. 4 ANEESH.R.KRISHNAN, S/O RADHAKRISHNAN, S R BHAVAN, VALAKKOTTUMALA, MANAMPOOR VILLAGE, VARKALA TALUK, 5 AJEESH R.KRISHNAN, AGED 29 YEARS, S/O RADHAKRISHNAN, S R BHAVAN, VALAKKOTTUMALA, MANAMPOOR VILLAGE, VARKALA TALUK, R2 RO 5 BY ADV A.K.RAJESH R1 BY SMT T V NEEMA -SR.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08.02.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ..2..

ORDER

This Crl.M.C. has been preferred to quash Annexure A Final Report in Crime No.75/2010 of Kallambalam Police Station on the ground of settlement between the parties.

2. The petitioners are the accused Nos.3, 5 and 6. The remaining accused were already acquitted. The respondent No.2 is the de facto complainant. The respondent Nos.3 to 5 are the injured.

3. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 143, 147, 452, 323, 506(i) and 354 read with Section 149 of the IPC.

4. The respondent Nos.2 to 5 entered appearance through counsel. Affidavits sworn in by them are also produced.

5. I have heard Sri.Shajin S.Hameed, the learned

counsel for the petitioners, Sri.A.K.Rajesh, the learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2 to 5 and Smt.T.V.Neema, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor for the respondent No.1. ..3..

6. The averments in the petition as well as in the

affidavits sworn in by the respondent Nos.2 to 5 would show that the entire dispute between the parties has been amicably settled and the de facto complainant has decided not to proceed with the crime further. The learned Prosecutor, on instruction, submits that the matter was enquired into through the investigating officer and a statement of the de facto complainant was also recorded wherein she reported that the matter was amicably settled.

7. The Apex Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab

[2012 (4) KLT 108 (SC)], Narinder Singh and Others v. State of Punjab and Others [(2014) 6 SCC 466] and in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan and Others [(2019) 5 SCC 688] has held that the High Court invoking S.482 of Cr.P.C can quash criminal proceedings in relation to non compoundable offence where the parties have settled the matter between themselves notwithstanding the bar under S.320 of Cr.P.C. if it is warranted in the given facts and circumstances of the case or to ensure ends of justice or to prevent abuse of process of any Court. ..4..

8. The dispute in the above case is purely personal in

nature. No public interest or harmony will be adversely affected by quashing the proceedings pursuant to Annexure A Final Report in Crime No.75/2010 of Kallambalam Police Station. The offences in question do not fall within the category of offences prohibited for compounding in terms of the pronouncement of the Apex Court in Gian Singh (supra), Narinder Singh (supra) and Laxmi Narayan (supra). For the reasons stated above, I am of the view that no purpose will be served in proceeding with the matter further. Accordingly, the Crl.M.C. is allowed. Annexure A Final Report in Crime No.75/2010 of Kallambalam Police Station stands hereby quashed. Sd/- DR.KAUSER EDAPPAGATH, JUDGE skj ..5.. APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 251/2022 PETITIONERS' ANNEXURES Annexure A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO.75/2010 OF KALLAMBALAM POLICE STATION. Annexure B PHOTOCOPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF DATED 26.10.2016 IN C C NO.350/2010 OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT- 1, VARKALA. Annexure C AFFIDAVIT EXECUTED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT/CW1. Annexure D AFFIDAVIT EXECUTED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT/CW2. Annexure E AFFIDAVIT EXECUTED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT/CW3 Annexure F AFFIDAVIT EXECUTED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT/CW4.

Same Court & Year Kerala · 2022 Same Parties Sajeev vs State of Kerala Same Judge Honourable Dr. Justice Kauser Edappagath