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.

Arjun @ Sumesh, vs State of Kerala

Arjun @ Sumesh, vs State of Kerala

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Apr 27, 2021
~4 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1626243

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/1960/2021

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Arjun @ Sumesh,

Respondent

State of Kerala

Excerpt

.....that the respondents 2 to 4 have admitted the execution of annexures a2 to a4 affidavits. the state has no serious objection in the petition being allowed.8. the hon'ble supreme court in gian singh vs. state of punjab [2012 (10) scc 303] and prabatbhai aahir @ parbatbhai bhimsinhbhai karmur and others vs. state of gujarat and another [(2017) 9 scc 641] hasheld that in facts and circumstances of a case and tosecure the ends of justice, where the high court is satisfied that an amicable settlement has been arrived between the parties and the offence is not serious in nature crl.mc.no.1960 of 2021(d) 4 involving mental depravity, criminal proceedings may be quashed.9. after considering the facts and circumstances ofthe case and on being convinced that ends of justice would justify the exercise of the inherent power of this court, particularly since the alleged offences are not serious in nature, no public interest is involved, the chances of conviction is remote, the continuation of the proceeding would only be wastage of judicial time and the settlement would augur harmony, i am satisfied that the petition is to be allowed. in the result, the crl.m.c is allowed. annexure a1 fir in crime no.313/2011 of the kayamkulam police station and all further proceedings pursuant to it as against the petitioner are quashed.sd/- c.s.dias judge ab crl.mc.no.1960 of 2021(d) 5 appendix petitioner's/s exhibits: annexure a1 true copy of the fir in crime no. 313/2011on the file of the kayamkulam police station, alappuzha district. annexure a2 original affidavit dated 22/03/2021 worn by the 2nd respondent/defacto complainant. annexure a3 original affidavit dated 22/03/2021 sworn by the 3rd respondent /wife of the deceased. annexure a4 original affidavit dated 22/03/2021 sworn by the 4th respondent /younger son of the deceased.respondents exhibits: nil

Full Judgment

Crl.MC.No.1960 OF 2021(D) 1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS TUESDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF APRIL 2021 / 7TH VAISAKHA, 1943 Crl.MC.No.1960 OF 2021(D) CRIME NO.313/2011 OF Kayamkulam Police Station , Alappuzha PETITIONER/ACCUSED: ARJUN @ SUMESH, AGED 34 YEARS S/O. LATE MURALEEDHARAN PILLAI, MANIKANDAVILASM, KOIPPALLIKARAZHMA, OLAKKETTIYAMBALAM P.O. BY ADVS. SRI.K.R.ARUN KRISHNAN SMT.DEEPA K.RADHAKRISHNAN RESPONDENTS/STATE AND DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM 682 031. 2 SATHEESH, AGED 38 YEARS S/O. RAMACHANDRAN, KUTTIYIL VEEDU, CHETTIKKULANGARA PANCHAYATH, WARD NO. 12, NADAKKAVU MURI, PERINGALA VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA 690 510. 3 SUBHADRA M.R., AGED 57 YEARS W/O. LATE MURALEEDHARAN PILLAI, MANIKANDAVILASM, KOIPPALLIKARAZHMA, OLAKKETTIYAMBALAM, P.O. 4 GOKUL M., AGED 32 YEARS, S/O. LATE MURALEEDHARAN PILLAI, MANIKANDAVILASM, KOIPPALLIKARAZHMA, OLAKKETTIYAMBALAM P.O. R2-4 BY ADV. SRI.P.S.ANISHAD SMT.SHYLAJA.S.L BY SMT.RAHNA.N.S -PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON

27.04.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Crl.MC.No.1960 OF 2021(D) 2

O R D E R

Dated this the 27th day of April 2021 This petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

2. The petitioner is the sole accused in Crime No.313/2011 of Kayamkulam Police Station registered for the offences punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The prosecution allegation against the petitioner

is that on 12.3.2011 due to scuffle between the petitioner and the deceased, the deceased was found lying unconscious and later passed away. Annexure A1 is the FIR registered by the police.

4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the 1 st respondent and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 2 to 4. Perused the records.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that with the intervention of well wishers, the subject matter in dispute between the petitioner and respondents 2 to 4 has Crl.MC.No.1960 OF 2021(D) 3 been settled out of court.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents

2 to 4 submitted that the respondents 2 to 4 have filed Annexures A2 to A4 affidavits, inter alia, stating that they have no subsisting grievance against the petitioner and they are no longer desirous of pursuing the matter any further. The learned counsel vouched for the signatures of the respondents 2 to 4.

7. The learned Public Prosecutor, on instructions,

reported that the investigating officer has ascertained the genuineness of the settlement and has found that the respondents 2 to 4 have admitted the execution of Annexures A2 to A4 affidavits. The State has no serious objection in the petition being allowed.

8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab [2012 (10) SCC 303] and Prabatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and others vs. State of Gujarat and another [(2017) 9 SCC 641] has

held that in facts and circumstances of a case and to

secure the ends of justice, where the High Court is satisfied that an amicable settlement has been arrived between the parties and the offence is not serious in nature Crl.MC.No.1960 OF 2021(D) 4 involving mental depravity, criminal proceedings may be quashed.

9. After considering the facts and circumstances of

the case and on being convinced that ends of justice would justify the exercise of the inherent power of this Court, particularly since the alleged offences are not serious in nature, no public interest is involved, the chances of conviction is remote, the continuation of the proceeding would only be wastage of judicial time and the settlement would augur harmony, I am satisfied that the petition is to be allowed. In the result, the Crl.M.C is allowed. Annexure A1 FIR in Crime No.313/2011 of the Kayamkulam Police Station and all further proceedings pursuant to it as against the petitioner are quashed.

Sd/- C.S.DIAS JUDGE ab Crl.MC.No.1960 OF 2021(D) 5 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: ANNEXURE A1 TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO. 313/2011

ON THE FILE OF THE KAYAMKULAM POLICE STATION, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. ANNEXURE A2 ORIGINAL AFFIDAVIT DATED 22/03/2021 WORN BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT. ANNEXURE A3 ORIGINAL AFFIDAVIT DATED 22/03/2021 SWORN BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT /WIFE OF THE DECEASED. ANNEXURE A4 ORIGINAL AFFIDAVIT DATED 22/03/2021 SWORN BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT /YOUNGER SON OF THE DECEASED.

RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS: NIL

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial