Balaraj vs State of Kerala

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Feb 26, 2021

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1603713

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/1603713
Court: Kerala High Court
Judge: Honourable Mrs. Justice Shircy V.
Decided On: Feb 26, 2021
Case Number: Crl.MC/788/2021

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Balaraj

Respondent

State of Kerala

Excerpt

.....under sections 323 and 498a of indian penal code, now pending as l.p. no. 29 of 2009 on the file of judicial first class magistrate-i, neyyattinkara.3. it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that, at the instance of the defacto complainant, on some misunderstanding and difference of opinion with the petitioner, the fir was registered against him and now the parties have resolved the entire disputes among themselves and as such there is no subsisting dispute between them. therefore, this petition to quash annexure a1 fir and annexure a2 final report.4. learned counsel appearing for the 3rdrespondent/defacto complainant has submitted that she has absolutely no grievance or complaints against the petitioner. annexure a3 is the affidavit sworn to byher in support of the submission of the petitioner. the affidavit further indicates that she has no intentionto pursue the matter further. 5. the learned public prosecutor has reported that the prosecution has no serious objection in allowing the petition. it is also submitted that as the dispute has been amicably settled, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and therefore, nouseful purpose would be served in proceeding with the case.6. heard both sides and perused the records.7. on hearing the submissions of all concerned, as well on consideration of the specialfacts and circumstances involved in this case, i findthat no fruitful purpose is likely to be served by proceeding with the matter against the petitioner. moreover, no public interest is involved in the case and there is no legal impediment in granting the prayer as sought for by the petitioner. therefore, for the purpose of securing the ends of justice, this crl.m.c. is only to be allowed. for the foregoing reasons, annexure a1 fir and annexure a2.....

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHIRCY V. FRIDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 7TH PHALGUNA, 1942 Crl.MC.No.788 OF 2021(G) LP 27/2009 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -I,NEYYATINKARA CRIME NO.572/2001 OF Neyyattinkara Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO. 1: BALARAJ, AGED 36 YEARS S/O. DASAYYAN, VADAKURISHU PUTHENVEEDU, KALAAMPODUVAN MELE, CHAAYKOTTUKONAM, KULATHAAMAN MELE DESAM, NEYYATTINKARA VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 505 BY ADV. SRI.M.R.SASITH RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM PIN 682 031 2 THE SUB-INSPECTOR, NEYYATTINKARA POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 121 3 AMBIKA, AGED 43 YEARS D/O. SUSEELA BAI, R/AT NJANDANKUZHI ROADARIKATHU VEEDU, MANNAMKONAM, VELLARADA VILLAGE, NEYYATTINKARA TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 505 R3 BY ADV. VIDYA G NAIR OTHER PRESENT: SRI AJITH MURALI-PP THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26.02.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER

Dated this the 26th day of February 2021 Petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

2. The petitioner is the sole accused in Crime No. 572 of 2001 of Neyyattinkara Police Station registered for the offences punishable under Sections 323 and 498A of Indian Penal Code, now pending as L.P. No. 29 of 2009 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Neyyattinkara.

3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that, at the instance of the defacto complainant, on some misunderstanding and difference of opinion with the petitioner, the FIR was registered against him and now the parties have resolved the entire disputes among themselves and as such there is no subsisting dispute between them. Therefore, this petition to quash Annexure A1 FIR and Annexure A2 final report.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the 3rd

respondent/defacto complainant has                          submitted that she
has     absolutely no grievance or complaints against the
petitioner.         Annexure A3 is the affidavit sworn to by

her in support of the submission of the petitioner. The affidavit further indicates that she has no intention

to    pursue the matter further.
           5.      The learned Public Prosecutor has reported
that    the     prosecution             has       no    serious     objection    in
allowing the petition.                   It is also         submitted that       as
the dispute has been amicably                          settled, the possibility
of conviction is remote and bleak and                             therefore,     no

useful purpose would be served in proceeding with the case.

6. Heard both sides and perused the records.

7. On hearing the submissions of all concerned, as well on consideration of the special

facts and circumstances involved in this case, I find

that no fruitful purpose is likely to be served by proceeding with the matter against the petitioner. Moreover, no public interest is involved in the case and there is no legal impediment in granting the prayer as sought for by the petitioner. Therefore, for the purpose of securing the ends of justice, this Crl.M.C. is only to be allowed. For the foregoing reasons, Annexure A1 FIR and Annexure A2 final report in Crime No.572 of 2001 of Neyyattinkara Police Station, now pending as L.P. No. 27 of 2009 on the file of the Judicial First Class

Magistrate-I, Neyyattinkara will stand quashed as prayed for. Sd/- SHIRCY V. JUDGE sb APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: ANNEXURE A1 CERTIFIED COPY OF FIR NO. 572/2001 OF NEYYATTINKARA POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM ANNEXURE A2 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO 572/2001 ANNEXURE A3 CERTIFIED COPY OF AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

Same Court & Year Kerala · 2021 Same Parties Balaraj vs State of Kerala Same Judge Honourable Mrs. Justice Shircy V.