Johnson Robert vs X

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Jun 30, 2020

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1776325

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/1776325
Court: Kerala High Court
Judge: Honourable Mrs. Justice Shircy V.
Decided On: Jun 30, 2020
Case Number: Crl.MC/2889/2020

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Johnson Robert

Respondent

Excerpt

.....that she has no intention to pursue the matter against the petitioner.5. the learned public prosecutor has reported that theprosecution 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 inproceeding with the case.6. on hearing the submissions of all concerned, andon 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 proceedingwith the matter against this 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, this crl.m.c. is allowed and annexure a3 fir in crime no. 312 of 2017 of thiruvalla police station, pathanamthitta will stand quashed as prayed for.sd/- shircy v. judge sb appendix petitioner's/s exhibits: annexure a1 a copy of the fir in crime no.2426 of 2016 annexure a2 a copy of the fi statement of the 1st respondent in fir in crime no.2426 of 2016 annexure a3 a copy of the fir in crime no.312 of 2017 of the thiruvalla police station. annexure a4 notarized copy of the affidavit sweared in by the 1st respondent.

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHIRCY V. TUESDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF JUNE 2020 / 9TH ASHADHA, 1942 Crl.MC.No.2889 OF 2020(A) CRIME NO.312/2017 OF Thiruvalla Police Station , Pathanamthitta PETITIONER/ACCUSED: JOHNSON ROBERT AGED 38 YEARS S/O. ROBERT, JOJO VILLAG, PERINGALA P. O., ULUNTHY, MAVELIKKARA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.SREEJITH S.NAIR RESPONDENTS/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT & STATE: 1 X X 2 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 682 031. OTHER PRESENT: PP HRITWIK CS THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30.06.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER

Dated this the 30th day of June 2020 Petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

2. The petitioner is the accused in Crime No. 312 of 2017 of Thiruvalla Police Station, Pathanamthitta registered for the offences punishable under Sections 376 of Indian Penal Code.

3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that due to the intervention of the mediators and relatives, the parties have resolved their entire dispute among themselves and as such there is no subsisting dispute between them. Therefore,this petition to quash Annexure A3 FIR.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent has submitted that the 1st respondent has absolutely no grievance or complaints against the petitioner. Annexure A4 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 against the petitioner.

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. 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 this 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, this Crl.M.C. is allowed and Annexure A3 FIR in Crime No. 312 of 2017 of Thiruvalla Police Station, Pathanamthitta will stand quashed as prayed for.

Sd/- SHIRCY V. JUDGE sb APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: ANNEXURE A1 A COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.2426 OF 2016 ANNEXURE A2 A COPY OF THE FI STATEMENT OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT IN FIR IN CRIME NO.2426 OF 2016 ANNEXURE A3 A COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.312 OF 2017 OF THE THIRUVALLA POLICE STATION. ANNEXURE A4 NOTARIZED COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWEARED IN BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

Same Court & Year Kerala · 2020 Same Parties Johnson Robert vs X Same Judge Honourable Mrs. Justice Shircy V.