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.

Sumatharaj vs State of Kerala

Sumatharaj vs State of Kerala

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided May 31, 2022
~5 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1445461

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/564/2022

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Sumatharaj

Respondent

State of Kerala

Excerpt

.....are under sections 143,147,149,447,323,324 and 326 of the indian penal code (ipc).2. the allegation against the petitioners is that on 20.02.2019 at about 9.45 p.m., the accused nos.1 to 6 trespassed into the courtyard of the 2 nd respondent/defacto complainant and assaulted him with weapons. annexure-a1 is the f.i.r and annexure- a2 is the final report submitted by the police. this crl.m.c. is filed for quashing all further proceedings in annexure-a2 final report.3. heard sri. sasith panicker, the learnedcounsel for the petitioners, sri.vipin narayan, the learned public prosecutor for the state and sri. renjith e.n., the learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent/defacto complainant.crl.mc no. 564 of 2022 4 4. the prayer for quashing the proceedings is sought mainly because the dispute between theparties has been settled and to substantiate the same, annexure-a3 affidavit sworn by the 2nd respondent is produced. the fact of settlement is acknowledged in the aforesaid affidavit, and it is also explicitly stated that, the 2nd respondent has no subsisting grievances against the petitioners herein. the 2nd respondent also clearly expressed his no objection to 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. the station house officer concerned by contacting the 2nd respondent examined the veracity of the settlement.5. on going through the nature of allegationsas contained in annexure-2 final report, it can be seen that, the dispute is basically private in nature. considering the settlement between the parties, the chances of a successful prosecution are crl.mc no. 564 of 2022 5 very bleak. hence, no fruitful purpose would be served if the proceedings are allowed to continue.therefore, i am of the view that, going .....

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A. TUESDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF MAY 2022 / 10TH JYAISHTA, 1944 CRL.MC NO. 564 OF 2022 [TO QUASH PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.981/2019 PENDING BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, KATTAKADA] [CRIME NO.112/2019 OF NEYYAR DAM POLICE STATION] PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.1 TO 5:

1 SUMATHARAJ AGED 41 YEARS S/O.VELUKUTTY KANI, MAITHRI MANDHIRAM, CHAKKAPPARA, KARIKUZHI P.O., VAZHICHAL VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 505. 2 VIJEESH AGED 28 YEARS S/O.VIJAYAN KANI, KEZHAKINKARA PUTHEN VEEDU, AYYA VILAKAM, CHAKKAPPARA, KARIKUZHI P.O., VAZHICHAL VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 505. 3 AKHIL AGED 29 YEARS S/O.KRISHNANKUTTY, GOKULAM, CHAKKAPPARA, KARIKUZHI P.O, VAZHICHAL VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAURAM - 695 505. 4 ANEESH AGED 29 YEARS S/O.AYYAPPAN, SREE PARVATHI MANDHIRAM, CHAKKAPPARA, KARIKUZHI P.O., VAZHICHAL VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 505. 5 ABHIJITH AGED 26 YEARS S/O.SAHADEVAN, SAGAR MANDHIRAM, KOVILLOOR DESOM, CHAKKAPPARA, KARIKUZHI P.O., VAZHICHAL VILLAGE,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 505. BY ADV M.R.SASITH

RESPONDENT/S: 1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF CRL.MC No. 564 of 2022 2 KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682 031. 2 ANANDHU KRISHNA AGED 25 YEARS S/O.MURALIDHARAN, SARASWATHY MANDIRAM, CHAKKAPPARA,KARIKUZHI P.O., VAZHICHAL VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 505. 3 THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, NEYYAR DAM POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695572

FOR R2 BY ADV RANJITH E N OTHER PRESENT: FOR R1 AND R3 BY ADV. VIPIN NARAYAN PP THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31.05.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: CRL.MC No. 564 of 2022 3

ORDER

The petitioners are accused in Crime No.112/2019 of Neyyar Dam Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram which is now pending as C.C.No.981/2019 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kattakada. The offences alleged are under Sections 143,147,149,447,323,324 and 326 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

2. The allegation against the petitioners is that on 20.02.2019 at about 9.45 p.m., the accused Nos.1 to 6 trespassed into the courtyard of the 2 nd respondent/defacto complainant and assaulted him with weapons. Annexure-A1 is the F.I.R and Annexure- A2 is the final report submitted by the police. This Crl.M.C. is filed for quashing all further proceedings in Annexure-A2 final report.

3. Heard Sri. Sasith Panicker, the learned

counsel for the petitioners, Sri.Vipin Narayan, the learned Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri. Renjith E.N., the learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent/defacto complainant.

CRL.MC No. 564 of 2022                 4
      4.    The prayer for quashing the proceedings is
sought      mainly        because      the    dispute       between    the

parties has been settled and to substantiate the same, Annexure-A3 affidavit sworn by the 2nd respondent is produced. The fact of settlement is acknowledged in the aforesaid affidavit, and it is also explicitly stated that, the 2nd respondent has no subsisting grievances against the petitioners herein. The 2nd respondent also clearly expressed his no objection to 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. The Station House Officer concerned by contacting the 2nd respondent examined the veracity of the settlement.

5. On going through the nature of allegations

as contained in Annexure-2 final report, it can be seen that, the dispute is basically private in nature. Considering the settlement between the parties, the chances of a successful prosecution are CRL.MC No. 564 of 2022 5 very bleak. 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.

6. It is true that one of the offences alleged against the petitioners is under section 326 of IPC.

However, it is seen from the records that, in respect of the very same incident, a crime bearing No.0111/2019 was registered by the Neyyar Dam Police Station against two accused persons, including the 2nd respondent herein. The offences alleged in the said Crime are under sections 294(b),341,324,308 r/w. section 34 of IPC and also under section 27 of the Arms Act. It is reported that, the settlement

between      the       parties          is       in    respect       of     both    the
aforesaid        crimes.           It    is           discernible         that,     the
parties       are        relatives           and       friends.       The    dispute

between the parties, which subsists in the form of CRL.MC No. 564 of 2022 6 two cases mentioned above, is settled. Therefore, to ensure peace among the relatives, it is only proper to show some indulgence in this case. In such circumstances, I am inclined to invoke the powers of

this Court under Section 482 of the Cr.PC even though the offence under section 326 is seen incorporated. Accordingly, this Crl.M.C. is allowed. All further proceedings in C.C.No.981/2019 pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kattakada, pursuant to Annexure-A2 final report submitted in Crime No.112/2019 of Neyyar Dam Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram Police Station are hereby quashed. Sd/- pkk ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A., JUDGE CRL.MC No. 564 of 2022 7 APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 564/2022 PETITIONERS’ ANNEXURES ANNEXURE A1 TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.112/2019 OF NEYYAR DAM POLICE STATION. Annexure A2 TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO.112/2019 OF NEYYAR DAM POLICE STATION. Annexure A3 AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial