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.

Vinod vs State of Kerala

VINOD vs State of Kerala

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Jul 26, 2021
~3 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1650259

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/2929/2021

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

VINOD

Respondent

State of Kerala

Excerpt

.....no grievance or complaints against the petitioner. annexure a2 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.6. the learned public prosecutor has reportedthat 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.7. on hearing the submissions of all concernedand on perusal of the records 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. no materials are available on record to attract the offences alleged against the petitioner. moreover, no public interest is involved in the case as such and there is no legal impediment in granting the prayer as sought for by the petitioner. (see gian singh v. state of punjab ((2012) 10 scc 303). 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 in crime no. 100 of 2021 of kanakamunnu police station will stand quashed as prayed for.sd/- shircy v. judge sb appendix of crl.mc 2929/2021 petitioner annexure annexure a1 certified copy of the fir in crime 100/2021 of kanakakunnu police station. annexure a2 affidavit of the de-facto complainant / 2nd respondent.

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHIRCY V. MONDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF JULY 2021 / 4TH SRAVANA, 1943 CRL.MC NO. 2929 OF 2021 CRIME NO. 100/2021 OF KANAKAKUNNU POLICE STATION PETITIONER/ACCUSED: VINOD, VINEETHA BHAVAN, KIZHAKKEKKARA MURI, ARATTUPUZHA. BY ADV M.R.SUDHEENDRAN RESPONDENTS/STATE & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT: 1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SHO, KANAKAKKUNNU POLICE STATION, THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 682 031. 2 DIVYA, AGED 30 YEARS D/O. SUJA, THOTTATHILETH HOUSE, MUTHUKULAM, HARIPAD P. O., - 690514. BY ADV GAJENDRA SINGH RAJPUROHIT OTHER PRESENT: C.N.PRABHAKARAN- SR.PP THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26.07.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER

DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF JULY, 2021 Petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

2. The petitioner is the accused in Crime No.

100 of 2021 of Kanakakunnu Police Station registered for the offences punishable under Sections 354C and 306 of Indian Penal Code and Section 66E of the Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008.

3. Heard both sides and perused the records.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner

submitted that the parties have resolved their entire dispute among themselves and as such there is no subsisting dispute between them. Therefore, this petition to quash the FIR.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the 2nd

respondent has submitted that she has absolutely no grievance or complaints against the petitioner. Annexure A2 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.

6. 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.

7. On hearing the submissions of all concerned

and on perusal of the records 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. No materials are available on record to attract the offences alleged against the petitioner. Moreover, no public interest is involved in the case as such and there is no legal impediment in granting the prayer as sought for by the petitioner. (See Gian Singh v. State of Punjab ((2012) 10 SCC 303). 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 in Crime No. 100 of 2021 of Kanakamunnu Police Station will stand quashed as prayed for.

Sd/- SHIRCY V. JUDGE sb APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 2929/2021 PETITIONER ANNEXURE Annexure A1 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME 100/2021 OF KANAKAKUNNU POLICE STATION. Annexure A2 AFFIDAVIT OF THE DE-FACTO COMPLAINANT / 2ND RESPONDENT.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial