Semantic Analysis by spaCy
Rajesh Vattaparambil Vs. Libeesh Udumbanattu
Decided On : Feb-28-2014
Court : Kerala
Notice (8): Undefined index: topics [APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 36]Code Context$shops2 = $shops['topics'];$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/meta.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Rajesh Vattaparambil Vs. Libeesh Udumbanattu Semantic Analysis', 'shops' => array( 'LAW' => array( (int) 0 => 'Section 482 of Code of Criminal', (int) 1 => 'Section 34', (int) 2 => 'Indian Penal Code', (int) 3 => 'Section 34', (int) 4 => 'Indian Penal Code', (int) 5 => 'Section 308 of Indian Penal Code', (int) 6 => 'Prevention of Corruption Act', (int) 7 => 'Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure' ), 'GPE' => array( (int) 0 => 'K.RAMAKRISHNAN', (int) 1 => 'THE1', (int) 2 => 'THE1', (int) 3 => 'P.A.', (int) 4 => 'Crime', (int) 5 => 'Counsel', (int) 6 => 'F.I.R.' ), 'DATE' => array( (int) 0 => 'FRIDAY', (int) 1 => '1274 of 2014', (int) 2 => '2014', (int) 3 => 'the 28th day of February, 2014', (int) 4 => '2014', (int) 5 => '2014', (int) 6 => '2014', (int) 7 => '2014' ), 'PERSON' => array( (int) 0 => 'MC.No', (int) 1 => 'RAJESH VATTAPARAMBIL', (int) 2 => 'P.O. KOOTTUMUKHAM', (int) 3 => 'TALIPARAMBA', (int) 4 => 'KOOTTUMUKHAM', (int) 5 => 'TALIPARAMBA', (int) 6 => 'JINSON THENAMKUZHIYIL', (int) 7 => 'TALIPARAMBA', (int) 8 => 'SRI.A.ARUNKUMAR', (int) 9 => 'RESPONDENTRS/', (int) 10 => 'K. Ramakrishnan', (int) 11 => 'Nos', (int) 12 => 'A1 F.I.R.', (int) 13 => 'Gian Singh V. State', (int) 14 => 'Sd/- K.Ramakrishnan' ), 'CARDINAL' => array( (int) 0 => '1', (int) 1 => '1', (int) 2 => '670', (int) 3 => '031', (int) 4 => '799', (int) 5 => '1 to 3', (int) 6 => '3', (int) 7 => '323', (int) 8 => '324', (int) 9 => '2', (int) 10 => '3', (int) 11 => '323', (int) 12 => '324', (int) 13 => 'two', (int) 14 => '4', (int) 15 => '2012(4', (int) 16 => '5', (int) 17 => '9', (int) 18 => '6' ), 'ORG' => array( (int) 0 => 'S/O. JOSEPH', (int) 1 => 'S/O. PATHROSE', (int) 2 => 'AGED30YEARS, S/O. MANI', (int) 3 => 'NEDIYANGA', (int) 4 => 'CHEPPARAMBU DESOM', (int) 5 => 'ADV', (int) 6 => 'SRI.S.R.SREEJITH', (int) 7 => 'RESPONDENTS', (int) 8 => 'NIL', (int) 9 => 'Crime No.799/13 of Sreekandapuram Police Station', (int) 10 => 'Crime No.799/13 of Sreekandapuram Police Station', (int) 11 => 'Public Prosecutor', (int) 12 => 'Sreekandapuram', (int) 13 => 'the High Court', (int) 14 => 'Court', (int) 15 => 'F.I.R', (int) 16 => 'the High Court', (int) 17 => 'the High Court', (int) 18 => 'Crime No.799/13 of Sreekandapuram Police Station' ), 'WORK_OF_ART' => array( (int) 0 => 'TALIPARAMBA' ), 'ORDINAL' => array( (int) 0 => 'first', (int) 1 => 'first', (int) 2 => 'First', (int) 3 => 'first', (int) 4 => 'first', (int) 5 => 'first', (int) 6 => 'first', (int) 7 => 'first' ) ), 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '1130983', 'acts' => null, 'appealno' => null, 'appellant' => 'Rajesh Vattaparambil', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'Rajesh Vattaparambil Vs. Libeesh Udumbanattu', 'casenote' => '', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => null, 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => null, 'counseldef' => null, 'court' => 'Kerala', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2014-02-28', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAMAKRISHNAN', 'judgement' => '<p>IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAMAKRISHNAN FRIDAY,THE28H DAY OF FEBRUARY20149TH PHALGUNA, 1935 Crl.MC.No. 1274 of 2014 (B) --------------------------------------- [CRIME NO. 799/2013 OF SREEKANDAPURAM POLICE STATION , KANNUR DISTRICT] ............ PETITIONERS/ACCUSED: ------------------------------------ 1. RAJESH VATTAPARAMBIL, AGED24YEARS, S/O. SEBASTIAN, RESIDING AT PANNIYAR, P.O. KOOTTUMUKHAM, SREEKANDAPURAM (VIA), TALIPARAMBA TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT.</p><p>2. SINOJ VATTAPARAMBIL, AGED34YEARS, S/O. JOSEPH, RESIDING AT PANNIYAR P.O, KOOTTUMUKHAM, SREEKANDAPURAM (VIA), TALIPARAMBA TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT.</p><p>3. JINSON THENAMKUZHIYIL, AGED34YEARS, S/O. PATHROSE, RESIDING AT PANNIYAR, P.O.KOOTTUMUKHAM, SREEKANDAPURAM (VIA), TALIPARAMBA TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADVS.SRI.M.SASINDRAN, SRI.A.ARUNKUMAR. RESPONDENTRS/ COMPLAINANT/ STATE: ------------------------------------------------------------ 1. LIBEESH UDUMBANATTU, AGED30YEARS, S/O. MANI, NEDIYANGA AMSOM, CHEPPARAMBU DESOM, TALIPARAMBA TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT- 670 001.</p><p>2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM -682 031. R1 BY ADV. SRI.S.R.SREEJITH, R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.HYMA. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON2802-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Prv. CRL.M.C. NO.1274/2014-B: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES: ANNEXURE AI: A TRUE COPY OF THE F.I.R IN CRIME NO. 799 OF2013OF SREEKANDAPURAM POLICE STATION. ANNEXURE AII: A TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT ENTERED INTO BETWEEN THE PETITIONERS AND THE1T RESPONDENT. ANNEXURE AIII: TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN TO BY THE1T RESPONDENT ENDORSING THE FACTUM OF COMPOUNDING OF THE OFFENCES AND THE SETTLEMENT OF DISPUTES BETWEEN THE PARTIES. RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. Prv. K. Ramakrishnan, J.</p><p>============================== Crl.M.C.No.1274 of 2014 ============================== Dated this, the 28th day of February, 2014. </p></p>ORDER<p><p> This is an application filed by accused Nos. 1 to 3 in Crime No.799/13 of Sreekandapuram Police Station to quash further proceedings against them in view of the settlement under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure.</p><p>2. It is alleged in the petition that petitioners are accused Nos.1 to 3 in Crime No.799/13 of Sreekandapuram Police Station which was registered on the basis of the statement given by the de facto complainant injured who is the first respondent herein against the petitioners alleging offences under Sections.341, 323, 324, 308 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. The investigation is in progress. In the meantime, the petitioners and the de facto complainant were relatives and due to the intervention of mediators and well wishers, the matter has been settled between them and first respondent does not want to proceed with the prosecution against the petitioners. Since some of the offences are non- compoundable in nature, petitioners have no other option except to approach this court seeking the following relief: Crl.M.C.No.1274 of 2014 :</p><p>2. : "To quash Annexure A1 F.I.R. in Crime No.799/2013 of Sreekandapuram Police Station Kannur District." 3. First respondent appeared through Counsel and submitted that since the petitioners and first respondent were relatives and due to the interventions of mediators and well wishers and family members, the matter has been settled and first respondent also filed an affidavit to that effect and he has no objection in quashing the proceedings.</p><p>4. The Counsel for the petitioners have also submitted that now they are living in harmony.</p><p>5. The learned Public Prosecutor on instructions submitted that except this case, there is no other case against the petitioners and they have no criminal background as well. But, however, opposed the application for quashing at this stage as it is in the crime stage.</p><p>6. It is an admitted fact that on the basis of the statement given by the first respondent, the Sreekandapuram police has registered a case as Crime No.799/13 against the petitioners alleging offences under Sections.341, 323, 324, 308 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. The investigation is in the primitive stage. Due to the intervention Crl.M.C.No.1274 of 2014 :</p><p>3. : of family members and relatives, the matter has been settled between the de facto complainant and the petitioners herein. The first respondent who is the de facto complainant now filed an affidavit before this court stating that the matter has been settled between the parties as they are close relatives and neighbours and harmony has been restored between them. So, he does not want to proceed with the prosecution.</p><p>7. Normally, this court will not interfere in the investigation and quash the proceedings at the initial stage namely at the crime stage especially when offence under Section 308 of Indian Penal Code is involved. But, in this case, the parties are relatives and neighbours and due to the intervention of mediators and well wishers and family members, the matter has been settled and the cordial relationship between them has been restored. Further, on going through the wound certificate of the injured, it is seen that the injuries sustained were not of grave nature though dangerous weapon like hammer is alleged to have been used. The allegation against other two accused persons are not that way as well.</p><p>8. In the decision reported in Gian Singh V. State of Crl.M.C.No.1274 of 2014 :</p><p>4. : Punjab [2012(4) KLT108(SC)] is held as follows: "The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarised thus: the power of the High Court in quashing in criminal proceeding or F.I.R. or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal court for compounding the offences under S.320 of the Code. Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz;(i) to secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court. In what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or F.I.R may be exercised where the offender and victim have settled their dispute would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no category can be prescribed. However, before exercise of such power, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc., cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim's family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and have serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between the victim and offender in relation to the offences under special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity etc; cannot provide for any basis for quashing criminal proceedings involving such offences. But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and pre-dominatingly civil flavour stand on different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc; or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. In this category of case, High Court may quash criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal case would put accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case despite full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim. In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceeding or continuation of the criminal proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the Crl.M.C.No.1274 of 2014 :</p><p>5. : victim and wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that criminal case is put to end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding." 9. In view of the dictum laid down in the above decision and also considering the fact that the petitioners and the first respondent are relatives and neighbours and due to the intervention of well wishers, mediators, family members and friends, the cordial relationship between them has been restored and the de facto complainant does not want to proceed with the prosecution against the petitioners, this court feels that no purpose will be served in allowing even investigation to proceed as the de facto complainant or other witnesses are not going to support the investigating officer in this regard. So, it will only a wastage of time of the court as well as the investigation agency is concerned to allow the investigation to continue. Considering the fact that the family relationship has been restored on account of the intervention of family members and friends, the pendency of this crime should not be a hurdle for their harmony to continue. So, treating this as exceptional case, this court feels that it is a fit case where the power under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure has to be invoked to quash the proceedings as no Crl.M.C.No.1274 of 2014 :</p><p>6. : effective purpose will be served in allowing the investigation to continue in the matter. So, the application is allowed and further proceedings in Crime No.799/13 of Sreekandapuram Police Station against the petitioners is quashed. Office is directed to communicate this order to the concerned court so as to inform the investigating agency about this for their further action in this regard. Sd/- K.Ramakrishnan, Judge. Bb [True copy] P.A to Judge', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => null, 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'Libeesh Udumbanattu', 'sub' => null, 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '1130983' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Rajesh Vattaparambil Vs. Libeesh Udumbanattu Semantic Analysis' $shops = array( 'LAW' => array( (int) 0 => 'Section 482 of Code of Criminal', (int) 1 => 'Section 34', (int) 2 => 'Indian Penal Code', (int) 3 => 'Section 34', (int) 4 => 'Indian Penal Code', (int) 5 => 'Section 308 of Indian Penal Code', (int) 6 => 'Prevention of Corruption Act', (int) 7 => 'Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure' ), 'GPE' => array( (int) 0 => 'K.RAMAKRISHNAN', (int) 1 => 'THE1', (int) 2 => 'THE1', (int) 3 => 'P.A.', (int) 4 => 'Crime', (int) 5 => 'Counsel', (int) 6 => 'F.I.R.' ), 'DATE' => array( (int) 0 => 'FRIDAY', (int) 1 => '1274 of 2014', (int) 2 => '2014', (int) 3 => 'the 28th day of February, 2014', (int) 4 => '2014', (int) 5 => '2014', (int) 6 => '2014', (int) 7 => '2014' ), 'PERSON' => array( (int) 0 => 'MC.No', (int) 1 => 'RAJESH VATTAPARAMBIL', (int) 2 => 'P.O. KOOTTUMUKHAM', (int) 3 => 'TALIPARAMBA', (int) 4 => 'KOOTTUMUKHAM', (int) 5 => 'TALIPARAMBA', (int) 6 => 'JINSON THENAMKUZHIYIL', (int) 7 => 'TALIPARAMBA', (int) 8 => 'SRI.A.ARUNKUMAR', (int) 9 => 'RESPONDENTRS/', (int) 10 => 'K. Ramakrishnan', (int) 11 => 'Nos', (int) 12 => 'A1 F.I.R.', (int) 13 => 'Gian Singh V. State', (int) 14 => 'Sd/- K.Ramakrishnan' ), 'CARDINAL' => array( (int) 0 => '1', (int) 1 => '1', (int) 2 => '670', (int) 3 => '031', (int) 4 => '799', (int) 5 => '1 to 3', (int) 6 => '3', (int) 7 => '323', (int) 8 => '324', (int) 9 => '2', (int) 10 => '3', (int) 11 => '323', (int) 12 => '324', (int) 13 => 'two', (int) 14 => '4', (int) 15 => '2012(4', (int) 16 => '5', (int) 17 => '9', (int) 18 => '6' ), 'ORG' => array( (int) 0 => 'S/O. JOSEPH', (int) 1 => 'S/O. PATHROSE', (int) 2 => 'AGED30YEARS, S/O. MANI', (int) 3 => 'NEDIYANGA', (int) 4 => 'CHEPPARAMBU DESOM', (int) 5 => 'ADV', (int) 6 => 'SRI.S.R.SREEJITH', (int) 7 => 'RESPONDENTS', (int) 8 => 'NIL', (int) 9 => 'Crime No.799/13 of Sreekandapuram Police Station', (int) 10 => 'Crime No.799/13 of Sreekandapuram Police Station', (int) 11 => 'Public Prosecutor', (int) 12 => 'Sreekandapuram', (int) 13 => 'the High Court', (int) 14 => 'Court', (int) 15 => 'F.I.R', (int) 16 => 'the High Court', (int) 17 => 'the High Court', (int) 18 => 'Crime No.799/13 of Sreekandapuram Police Station' ), 'WORK_OF_ART' => array( (int) 0 => 'TALIPARAMBA' ), 'ORDINAL' => array( (int) 0 => 'first', (int) 1 => 'first', (int) 2 => 'First', (int) 3 => 'first', (int) 4 => 'first', (int) 5 => 'first', (int) 6 => 'first', (int) 7 => 'first' ) ) $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '1130983', 'acts' => null, 'appealno' => null, 'appellant' => 'Rajesh Vattaparambil', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'Rajesh Vattaparambil Vs. Libeesh Udumbanattu', 'casenote' => '', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => null, 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => null, 'counseldef' => null, 'court' => 'Kerala', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2014-02-28', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAMAKRISHNAN', 'judgement' => '<p>IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAMAKRISHNAN FRIDAY,THE28H DAY OF FEBRUARY20149TH PHALGUNA, 1935 Crl.MC.No. 1274 of 2014 (B) --------------------------------------- [CRIME NO. 799/2013 OF SREEKANDAPURAM POLICE STATION , KANNUR DISTRICT] ............ PETITIONERS/ACCUSED: ------------------------------------ 1. RAJESH VATTAPARAMBIL, AGED24YEARS, S/O. SEBASTIAN, RESIDING AT PANNIYAR, P.O. KOOTTUMUKHAM, SREEKANDAPURAM (VIA), TALIPARAMBA TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT.</p><p>2. SINOJ VATTAPARAMBIL, AGED34YEARS, S/O. JOSEPH, RESIDING AT PANNIYAR P.O, KOOTTUMUKHAM, SREEKANDAPURAM (VIA), TALIPARAMBA TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT.</p><p>3. JINSON THENAMKUZHIYIL, AGED34YEARS, S/O. PATHROSE, RESIDING AT PANNIYAR, P.O.KOOTTUMUKHAM, SREEKANDAPURAM (VIA), TALIPARAMBA TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADVS.SRI.M.SASINDRAN, SRI.A.ARUNKUMAR. RESPONDENTRS/ COMPLAINANT/ STATE: ------------------------------------------------------------ 1. LIBEESH UDUMBANATTU, AGED30YEARS, S/O. MANI, NEDIYANGA AMSOM, CHEPPARAMBU DESOM, TALIPARAMBA TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT- 670 001.</p><p>2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM -682 031. R1 BY ADV. SRI.S.R.SREEJITH, R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.HYMA. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON2802-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Prv. CRL.M.C. NO.1274/2014-B: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES: ANNEXURE AI: A TRUE COPY OF THE F.I.R IN CRIME NO. 799 OF2013OF SREEKANDAPURAM POLICE STATION. ANNEXURE AII: A TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT ENTERED INTO BETWEEN THE PETITIONERS AND THE1T RESPONDENT. ANNEXURE AIII: TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN TO BY THE1T RESPONDENT ENDORSING THE FACTUM OF COMPOUNDING OF THE OFFENCES AND THE SETTLEMENT OF DISPUTES BETWEEN THE PARTIES. RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. Prv. K. Ramakrishnan, J.</p><p>============================== Crl.M.C.No.1274 of 2014 ============================== Dated this, the 28th day of February, 2014. </p></p>ORDER<p><p> This is an application filed by accused Nos. 1 to 3 in Crime No.799/13 of Sreekandapuram Police Station to quash further proceedings against them in view of the settlement under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure.</p><p>2. It is alleged in the petition that petitioners are accused Nos.1 to 3 in Crime No.799/13 of Sreekandapuram Police Station which was registered on the basis of the statement given by the de facto complainant injured who is the first respondent herein against the petitioners alleging offences under Sections.341, 323, 324, 308 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. The investigation is in progress. In the meantime, the petitioners and the de facto complainant were relatives and due to the intervention of mediators and well wishers, the matter has been settled between them and first respondent does not want to proceed with the prosecution against the petitioners. Since some of the offences are non- compoundable in nature, petitioners have no other option except to approach this court seeking the following relief: Crl.M.C.No.1274 of 2014 :</p><p>2. : "To quash Annexure A1 F.I.R. in Crime No.799/2013 of Sreekandapuram Police Station Kannur District." 3. First respondent appeared through Counsel and submitted that since the petitioners and first respondent were relatives and due to the interventions of mediators and well wishers and family members, the matter has been settled and first respondent also filed an affidavit to that effect and he has no objection in quashing the proceedings.</p><p>4. The Counsel for the petitioners have also submitted that now they are living in harmony.</p><p>5. The learned Public Prosecutor on instructions submitted that except this case, there is no other case against the petitioners and they have no criminal background as well. But, however, opposed the application for quashing at this stage as it is in the crime stage.</p><p>6. It is an admitted fact that on the basis of the statement given by the first respondent, the Sreekandapuram police has registered a case as Crime No.799/13 against the petitioners alleging offences under Sections.341, 323, 324, 308 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. The investigation is in the primitive stage. Due to the intervention Crl.M.C.No.1274 of 2014 :</p><p>3. : of family members and relatives, the matter has been settled between the de facto complainant and the petitioners herein. The first respondent who is the de facto complainant now filed an affidavit before this court stating that the matter has been settled between the parties as they are close relatives and neighbours and harmony has been restored between them. So, he does not want to proceed with the prosecution.</p><p>7. Normally, this court will not interfere in the investigation and quash the proceedings at the initial stage namely at the crime stage especially when offence under Section 308 of Indian Penal Code is involved. But, in this case, the parties are relatives and neighbours and due to the intervention of mediators and well wishers and family members, the matter has been settled and the cordial relationship between them has been restored. Further, on going through the wound certificate of the injured, it is seen that the injuries sustained were not of grave nature though dangerous weapon like hammer is alleged to have been used. The allegation against other two accused persons are not that way as well.</p><p>8. In the decision reported in Gian Singh V. State of Crl.M.C.No.1274 of 2014 :</p><p>4. : Punjab [2012(4) KLT108(SC)] is held as follows: "The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarised thus: the power of the High Court in quashing in criminal proceeding or F.I.R. or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal court for compounding the offences under S.320 of the Code. Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz;(i) to secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court. In what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or F.I.R may be exercised where the offender and victim have settled their dispute would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no category can be prescribed. However, before exercise of such power, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc., cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim's family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and have serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between the victim and offender in relation to the offences under special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity etc; cannot provide for any basis for quashing criminal proceedings involving such offences. But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and pre-dominatingly civil flavour stand on different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc; or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. In this category of case, High Court may quash criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal case would put accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case despite full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim. In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceeding or continuation of the criminal proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the Crl.M.C.No.1274 of 2014 :</p><p>5. : victim and wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that criminal case is put to end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding." 9. In view of the dictum laid down in the above decision and also considering the fact that the petitioners and the first respondent are relatives and neighbours and due to the intervention of well wishers, mediators, family members and friends, the cordial relationship between them has been restored and the de facto complainant does not want to proceed with the prosecution against the petitioners, this court feels that no purpose will be served in allowing even investigation to proceed as the de facto complainant or other witnesses are not going to support the investigating officer in this regard. So, it will only a wastage of time of the court as well as the investigation agency is concerned to allow the investigation to continue. Considering the fact that the family relationship has been restored on account of the intervention of family members and friends, the pendency of this crime should not be a hurdle for their harmony to continue. So, treating this as exceptional case, this court feels that it is a fit case where the power under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure has to be invoked to quash the proceedings as no Crl.M.C.No.1274 of 2014 :</p><p>6. : effective purpose will be served in allowing the investigation to continue in the matter. So, the application is allowed and further proceedings in Crime No.799/13 of Sreekandapuram Police Station against the petitioners is quashed. Office is directed to communicate this order to the concerned court so as to inform the investigating agency about this for their further action in this regard. Sd/- K.Ramakrishnan, Judge. Bb [True copy] P.A to Judge', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => null, 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'Libeesh Udumbanattu', 'sub' => null, 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $args = array( (int) 0 => '1130983' ) $pattern = '/\(((0[1-9]|[12][0-9]|3[01])[.](0[1-9]|1[012])[.](17|18|19|20)[0-9]{2}).*\)/'include - APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 36 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
Warning (2): Invalid argument supplied for foreach() [APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 39]Code Context//$shops = $shops['entities'];foreach ($shops2 as $key => $val) {$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/meta.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Rajesh Vattaparambil Vs. Libeesh Udumbanattu Semantic Analysis', 'shops' => array( 'LAW' => array( (int) 0 => 'Section 482 of Code of Criminal', (int) 1 => 'Section 34', (int) 2 => 'Indian Penal Code', (int) 3 => 'Section 34', (int) 4 => 'Indian Penal Code', (int) 5 => 'Section 308 of Indian Penal Code', (int) 6 => 'Prevention of Corruption Act', (int) 7 => 'Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure' ), 'GPE' => array( (int) 0 => 'K.RAMAKRISHNAN', (int) 1 => 'THE1', (int) 2 => 'THE1', (int) 3 => 'P.A.', (int) 4 => 'Crime', (int) 5 => 'Counsel', (int) 6 => 'F.I.R.' ), 'DATE' => array( (int) 0 => 'FRIDAY', (int) 1 => '1274 of 2014', (int) 2 => '2014', (int) 3 => 'the 28th day of February, 2014', (int) 4 => '2014', (int) 5 => '2014', (int) 6 => '2014', (int) 7 => '2014' ), 'PERSON' => array( (int) 0 => 'MC.No', (int) 1 => 'RAJESH VATTAPARAMBIL', (int) 2 => 'P.O. KOOTTUMUKHAM', (int) 3 => 'TALIPARAMBA', (int) 4 => 'KOOTTUMUKHAM', (int) 5 => 'TALIPARAMBA', (int) 6 => 'JINSON THENAMKUZHIYIL', (int) 7 => 'TALIPARAMBA', (int) 8 => 'SRI.A.ARUNKUMAR', (int) 9 => 'RESPONDENTRS/', (int) 10 => 'K. Ramakrishnan', (int) 11 => 'Nos', (int) 12 => 'A1 F.I.R.', (int) 13 => 'Gian Singh V. State', (int) 14 => 'Sd/- K.Ramakrishnan' ), 'CARDINAL' => array( (int) 0 => '1', (int) 1 => '1', (int) 2 => '670', (int) 3 => '031', (int) 4 => '799', (int) 5 => '1 to 3', (int) 6 => '3', (int) 7 => '323', (int) 8 => '324', (int) 9 => '2', (int) 10 => '3', (int) 11 => '323', (int) 12 => '324', (int) 13 => 'two', (int) 14 => '4', (int) 15 => '2012(4', (int) 16 => '5', (int) 17 => '9', (int) 18 => '6' ), 'ORG' => array( (int) 0 => 'S/O. JOSEPH', (int) 1 => 'S/O. PATHROSE', (int) 2 => 'AGED30YEARS, S/O. MANI', (int) 3 => 'NEDIYANGA', (int) 4 => 'CHEPPARAMBU DESOM', (int) 5 => 'ADV', (int) 6 => 'SRI.S.R.SREEJITH', (int) 7 => 'RESPONDENTS', (int) 8 => 'NIL', (int) 9 => 'Crime No.799/13 of Sreekandapuram Police Station', (int) 10 => 'Crime No.799/13 of Sreekandapuram Police Station', (int) 11 => 'Public Prosecutor', (int) 12 => 'Sreekandapuram', (int) 13 => 'the High Court', (int) 14 => 'Court', (int) 15 => 'F.I.R', (int) 16 => 'the High Court', (int) 17 => 'the High Court', (int) 18 => 'Crime No.799/13 of Sreekandapuram Police Station' ), 'WORK_OF_ART' => array( (int) 0 => 'TALIPARAMBA' ), 'ORDINAL' => array( (int) 0 => 'first', (int) 1 => 'first', (int) 2 => 'First', (int) 3 => 'first', (int) 4 => 'first', (int) 5 => 'first', (int) 6 => 'first', (int) 7 => 'first' ) ), 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '1130983', 'acts' => null, 'appealno' => null, 'appellant' => 'Rajesh Vattaparambil', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'Rajesh Vattaparambil Vs. Libeesh Udumbanattu', 'casenote' => '', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => null, 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => null, 'counseldef' => null, 'court' => 'Kerala', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2014-02-28', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAMAKRISHNAN', 'judgement' => '<p>IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAMAKRISHNAN FRIDAY,THE28H DAY OF FEBRUARY20149TH PHALGUNA, 1935 Crl.MC.No. 1274 of 2014 (B) --------------------------------------- [CRIME NO. 799/2013 OF SREEKANDAPURAM POLICE STATION , KANNUR DISTRICT] ............ PETITIONERS/ACCUSED: ------------------------------------ 1. RAJESH VATTAPARAMBIL, AGED24YEARS, S/O. SEBASTIAN, RESIDING AT PANNIYAR, P.O. KOOTTUMUKHAM, SREEKANDAPURAM (VIA), TALIPARAMBA TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT.</p><p>2. SINOJ VATTAPARAMBIL, AGED34YEARS, S/O. JOSEPH, RESIDING AT PANNIYAR P.O, KOOTTUMUKHAM, SREEKANDAPURAM (VIA), TALIPARAMBA TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT.</p><p>3. JINSON THENAMKUZHIYIL, AGED34YEARS, S/O. PATHROSE, RESIDING AT PANNIYAR, P.O.KOOTTUMUKHAM, SREEKANDAPURAM (VIA), TALIPARAMBA TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADVS.SRI.M.SASINDRAN, SRI.A.ARUNKUMAR. RESPONDENTRS/ COMPLAINANT/ STATE: ------------------------------------------------------------ 1. LIBEESH UDUMBANATTU, AGED30YEARS, S/O. MANI, NEDIYANGA AMSOM, CHEPPARAMBU DESOM, TALIPARAMBA TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT- 670 001.</p><p>2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM -682 031. R1 BY ADV. SRI.S.R.SREEJITH, R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.HYMA. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON2802-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Prv. CRL.M.C. NO.1274/2014-B: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES: ANNEXURE AI: A TRUE COPY OF THE F.I.R IN CRIME NO. 799 OF2013OF SREEKANDAPURAM POLICE STATION. ANNEXURE AII: A TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT ENTERED INTO BETWEEN THE PETITIONERS AND THE1T RESPONDENT. ANNEXURE AIII: TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN TO BY THE1T RESPONDENT ENDORSING THE FACTUM OF COMPOUNDING OF THE OFFENCES AND THE SETTLEMENT OF DISPUTES BETWEEN THE PARTIES. RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. Prv. K. Ramakrishnan, J.</p><p>============================== Crl.M.C.No.1274 of 2014 ============================== Dated this, the 28th day of February, 2014. </p></p>ORDER<p><p> This is an application filed by accused Nos. 1 to 3 in Crime No.799/13 of Sreekandapuram Police Station to quash further proceedings against them in view of the settlement under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure.</p><p>2. It is alleged in the petition that petitioners are accused Nos.1 to 3 in Crime No.799/13 of Sreekandapuram Police Station which was registered on the basis of the statement given by the de facto complainant injured who is the first respondent herein against the petitioners alleging offences under Sections.341, 323, 324, 308 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. The investigation is in progress. In the meantime, the petitioners and the de facto complainant were relatives and due to the intervention of mediators and well wishers, the matter has been settled between them and first respondent does not want to proceed with the prosecution against the petitioners. Since some of the offences are non- compoundable in nature, petitioners have no other option except to approach this court seeking the following relief: Crl.M.C.No.1274 of 2014 :</p><p>2. : "To quash Annexure A1 F.I.R. in Crime No.799/2013 of Sreekandapuram Police Station Kannur District." 3. First respondent appeared through Counsel and submitted that since the petitioners and first respondent were relatives and due to the interventions of mediators and well wishers and family members, the matter has been settled and first respondent also filed an affidavit to that effect and he has no objection in quashing the proceedings.</p><p>4. The Counsel for the petitioners have also submitted that now they are living in harmony.</p><p>5. The learned Public Prosecutor on instructions submitted that except this case, there is no other case against the petitioners and they have no criminal background as well. But, however, opposed the application for quashing at this stage as it is in the crime stage.</p><p>6. It is an admitted fact that on the basis of the statement given by the first respondent, the Sreekandapuram police has registered a case as Crime No.799/13 against the petitioners alleging offences under Sections.341, 323, 324, 308 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. The investigation is in the primitive stage. Due to the intervention Crl.M.C.No.1274 of 2014 :</p><p>3. : of family members and relatives, the matter has been settled between the de facto complainant and the petitioners herein. The first respondent who is the de facto complainant now filed an affidavit before this court stating that the matter has been settled between the parties as they are close relatives and neighbours and harmony has been restored between them. So, he does not want to proceed with the prosecution.</p><p>7. Normally, this court will not interfere in the investigation and quash the proceedings at the initial stage namely at the crime stage especially when offence under Section 308 of Indian Penal Code is involved. But, in this case, the parties are relatives and neighbours and due to the intervention of mediators and well wishers and family members, the matter has been settled and the cordial relationship between them has been restored. Further, on going through the wound certificate of the injured, it is seen that the injuries sustained were not of grave nature though dangerous weapon like hammer is alleged to have been used. The allegation against other two accused persons are not that way as well.</p><p>8. In the decision reported in Gian Singh V. State of Crl.M.C.No.1274 of 2014 :</p><p>4. : Punjab [2012(4) KLT108(SC)] is held as follows: "The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarised thus: the power of the High Court in quashing in criminal proceeding or F.I.R. or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal court for compounding the offences under S.320 of the Code. Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz;(i) to secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court. In what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or F.I.R may be exercised where the offender and victim have settled their dispute would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no category can be prescribed. However, before exercise of such power, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc., cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim's family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and have serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between the victim and offender in relation to the offences under special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity etc; cannot provide for any basis for quashing criminal proceedings involving such offences. But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and pre-dominatingly civil flavour stand on different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc; or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. In this category of case, High Court may quash criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal case would put accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case despite full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim. In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceeding or continuation of the criminal proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the Crl.M.C.No.1274 of 2014 :</p><p>5. : victim and wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that criminal case is put to end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding." 9. In view of the dictum laid down in the above decision and also considering the fact that the petitioners and the first respondent are relatives and neighbours and due to the intervention of well wishers, mediators, family members and friends, the cordial relationship between them has been restored and the de facto complainant does not want to proceed with the prosecution against the petitioners, this court feels that no purpose will be served in allowing even investigation to proceed as the de facto complainant or other witnesses are not going to support the investigating officer in this regard. So, it will only a wastage of time of the court as well as the investigation agency is concerned to allow the investigation to continue. Considering the fact that the family relationship has been restored on account of the intervention of family members and friends, the pendency of this crime should not be a hurdle for their harmony to continue. So, treating this as exceptional case, this court feels that it is a fit case where the power under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure has to be invoked to quash the proceedings as no Crl.M.C.No.1274 of 2014 :</p><p>6. : effective purpose will be served in allowing the investigation to continue in the matter. So, the application is allowed and further proceedings in Crime No.799/13 of Sreekandapuram Police Station against the petitioners is quashed. Office is directed to communicate this order to the concerned court so as to inform the investigating agency about this for their further action in this regard. Sd/- K.Ramakrishnan, Judge. Bb [True copy] P.A to Judge', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => null, 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'Libeesh Udumbanattu', 'sub' => null, 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '1130983' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Rajesh Vattaparambil Vs. Libeesh Udumbanattu Semantic Analysis' $shops = array( 'LAW' => array( (int) 0 => 'Section 482 of Code of Criminal', (int) 1 => 'Section 34', (int) 2 => 'Indian Penal Code', (int) 3 => 'Section 34', (int) 4 => 'Indian Penal Code', (int) 5 => 'Section 308 of Indian Penal Code', (int) 6 => 'Prevention of Corruption Act', (int) 7 => 'Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure' ), 'GPE' => array( (int) 0 => 'K.RAMAKRISHNAN', (int) 1 => 'THE1', (int) 2 => 'THE1', (int) 3 => 'P.A.', (int) 4 => 'Crime', (int) 5 => 'Counsel', (int) 6 => 'F.I.R.' ), 'DATE' => array( (int) 0 => 'FRIDAY', (int) 1 => '1274 of 2014', (int) 2 => '2014', (int) 3 => 'the 28th day of February, 2014', (int) 4 => '2014', (int) 5 => '2014', (int) 6 => '2014', (int) 7 => '2014' ), 'PERSON' => array( (int) 0 => 'MC.No', (int) 1 => 'RAJESH VATTAPARAMBIL', (int) 2 => 'P.O. KOOTTUMUKHAM', (int) 3 => 'TALIPARAMBA', (int) 4 => 'KOOTTUMUKHAM', (int) 5 => 'TALIPARAMBA', (int) 6 => 'JINSON THENAMKUZHIYIL', (int) 7 => 'TALIPARAMBA', (int) 8 => 'SRI.A.ARUNKUMAR', (int) 9 => 'RESPONDENTRS/', (int) 10 => 'K. Ramakrishnan', (int) 11 => 'Nos', (int) 12 => 'A1 F.I.R.', (int) 13 => 'Gian Singh V. State', (int) 14 => 'Sd/- K.Ramakrishnan' ), 'CARDINAL' => array( (int) 0 => '1', (int) 1 => '1', (int) 2 => '670', (int) 3 => '031', (int) 4 => '799', (int) 5 => '1 to 3', (int) 6 => '3', (int) 7 => '323', (int) 8 => '324', (int) 9 => '2', (int) 10 => '3', (int) 11 => '323', (int) 12 => '324', (int) 13 => 'two', (int) 14 => '4', (int) 15 => '2012(4', (int) 16 => '5', (int) 17 => '9', (int) 18 => '6' ), 'ORG' => array( (int) 0 => 'S/O. JOSEPH', (int) 1 => 'S/O. PATHROSE', (int) 2 => 'AGED30YEARS, S/O. MANI', (int) 3 => 'NEDIYANGA', (int) 4 => 'CHEPPARAMBU DESOM', (int) 5 => 'ADV', (int) 6 => 'SRI.S.R.SREEJITH', (int) 7 => 'RESPONDENTS', (int) 8 => 'NIL', (int) 9 => 'Crime No.799/13 of Sreekandapuram Police Station', (int) 10 => 'Crime No.799/13 of Sreekandapuram Police Station', (int) 11 => 'Public Prosecutor', (int) 12 => 'Sreekandapuram', (int) 13 => 'the High Court', (int) 14 => 'Court', (int) 15 => 'F.I.R', (int) 16 => 'the High Court', (int) 17 => 'the High Court', (int) 18 => 'Crime No.799/13 of Sreekandapuram Police Station' ), 'WORK_OF_ART' => array( (int) 0 => 'TALIPARAMBA' ), 'ORDINAL' => array( (int) 0 => 'first', (int) 1 => 'first', (int) 2 => 'First', (int) 3 => 'first', (int) 4 => 'first', (int) 5 => 'first', (int) 6 => 'first', (int) 7 => 'first' ) ) $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '1130983', 'acts' => null, 'appealno' => null, 'appellant' => 'Rajesh Vattaparambil', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'Rajesh Vattaparambil Vs. Libeesh Udumbanattu', 'casenote' => '', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => null, 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => null, 'counseldef' => null, 'court' => 'Kerala', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2014-02-28', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAMAKRISHNAN', 'judgement' => '<p>IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAMAKRISHNAN FRIDAY,THE28H DAY OF FEBRUARY20149TH PHALGUNA, 1935 Crl.MC.No. 1274 of 2014 (B) --------------------------------------- [CRIME NO. 799/2013 OF SREEKANDAPURAM POLICE STATION , KANNUR DISTRICT] ............ PETITIONERS/ACCUSED: ------------------------------------ 1. RAJESH VATTAPARAMBIL, AGED24YEARS, S/O. SEBASTIAN, RESIDING AT PANNIYAR, P.O. KOOTTUMUKHAM, SREEKANDAPURAM (VIA), TALIPARAMBA TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT.</p><p>2. SINOJ VATTAPARAMBIL, AGED34YEARS, S/O. JOSEPH, RESIDING AT PANNIYAR P.O, KOOTTUMUKHAM, SREEKANDAPURAM (VIA), TALIPARAMBA TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT.</p><p>3. JINSON THENAMKUZHIYIL, AGED34YEARS, S/O. PATHROSE, RESIDING AT PANNIYAR, P.O.KOOTTUMUKHAM, SREEKANDAPURAM (VIA), TALIPARAMBA TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADVS.SRI.M.SASINDRAN, SRI.A.ARUNKUMAR. RESPONDENTRS/ COMPLAINANT/ STATE: ------------------------------------------------------------ 1. LIBEESH UDUMBANATTU, AGED30YEARS, S/O. MANI, NEDIYANGA AMSOM, CHEPPARAMBU DESOM, TALIPARAMBA TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT- 670 001.</p><p>2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM -682 031. R1 BY ADV. SRI.S.R.SREEJITH, R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.HYMA. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON2802-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Prv. CRL.M.C. NO.1274/2014-B: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES: ANNEXURE AI: A TRUE COPY OF THE F.I.R IN CRIME NO. 799 OF2013OF SREEKANDAPURAM POLICE STATION. ANNEXURE AII: A TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT ENTERED INTO BETWEEN THE PETITIONERS AND THE1T RESPONDENT. ANNEXURE AIII: TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN TO BY THE1T RESPONDENT ENDORSING THE FACTUM OF COMPOUNDING OF THE OFFENCES AND THE SETTLEMENT OF DISPUTES BETWEEN THE PARTIES. RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. Prv. K. Ramakrishnan, J.</p><p>============================== Crl.M.C.No.1274 of 2014 ============================== Dated this, the 28th day of February, 2014. </p></p>ORDER<p><p> This is an application filed by accused Nos. 1 to 3 in Crime No.799/13 of Sreekandapuram Police Station to quash further proceedings against them in view of the settlement under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure.</p><p>2. It is alleged in the petition that petitioners are accused Nos.1 to 3 in Crime No.799/13 of Sreekandapuram Police Station which was registered on the basis of the statement given by the de facto complainant injured who is the first respondent herein against the petitioners alleging offences under Sections.341, 323, 324, 308 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. The investigation is in progress. In the meantime, the petitioners and the de facto complainant were relatives and due to the intervention of mediators and well wishers, the matter has been settled between them and first respondent does not want to proceed with the prosecution against the petitioners. Since some of the offences are non- compoundable in nature, petitioners have no other option except to approach this court seeking the following relief: Crl.M.C.No.1274 of 2014 :</p><p>2. : "To quash Annexure A1 F.I.R. in Crime No.799/2013 of Sreekandapuram Police Station Kannur District." 3. First respondent appeared through Counsel and submitted that since the petitioners and first respondent were relatives and due to the interventions of mediators and well wishers and family members, the matter has been settled and first respondent also filed an affidavit to that effect and he has no objection in quashing the proceedings.</p><p>4. The Counsel for the petitioners have also submitted that now they are living in harmony.</p><p>5. The learned Public Prosecutor on instructions submitted that except this case, there is no other case against the petitioners and they have no criminal background as well. But, however, opposed the application for quashing at this stage as it is in the crime stage.</p><p>6. It is an admitted fact that on the basis of the statement given by the first respondent, the Sreekandapuram police has registered a case as Crime No.799/13 against the petitioners alleging offences under Sections.341, 323, 324, 308 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. The investigation is in the primitive stage. Due to the intervention Crl.M.C.No.1274 of 2014 :</p><p>3. : of family members and relatives, the matter has been settled between the de facto complainant and the petitioners herein. The first respondent who is the de facto complainant now filed an affidavit before this court stating that the matter has been settled between the parties as they are close relatives and neighbours and harmony has been restored between them. So, he does not want to proceed with the prosecution.</p><p>7. Normally, this court will not interfere in the investigation and quash the proceedings at the initial stage namely at the crime stage especially when offence under Section 308 of Indian Penal Code is involved. But, in this case, the parties are relatives and neighbours and due to the intervention of mediators and well wishers and family members, the matter has been settled and the cordial relationship between them has been restored. Further, on going through the wound certificate of the injured, it is seen that the injuries sustained were not of grave nature though dangerous weapon like hammer is alleged to have been used. The allegation against other two accused persons are not that way as well.</p><p>8. In the decision reported in Gian Singh V. State of Crl.M.C.No.1274 of 2014 :</p><p>4. : Punjab [2012(4) KLT108(SC)] is held as follows: "The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarised thus: the power of the High Court in quashing in criminal proceeding or F.I.R. or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal court for compounding the offences under S.320 of the Code. Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz;(i) to secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court. In what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or F.I.R may be exercised where the offender and victim have settled their dispute would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no category can be prescribed. However, before exercise of such power, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc., cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim's family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and have serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between the victim and offender in relation to the offences under special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity etc; cannot provide for any basis for quashing criminal proceedings involving such offences. But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and pre-dominatingly civil flavour stand on different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc; or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. In this category of case, High Court may quash criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal case would put accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case despite full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim. In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceeding or continuation of the criminal proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the Crl.M.C.No.1274 of 2014 :</p><p>5. : victim and wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that criminal case is put to end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding." 9. In view of the dictum laid down in the above decision and also considering the fact that the petitioners and the first respondent are relatives and neighbours and due to the intervention of well wishers, mediators, family members and friends, the cordial relationship between them has been restored and the de facto complainant does not want to proceed with the prosecution against the petitioners, this court feels that no purpose will be served in allowing even investigation to proceed as the de facto complainant or other witnesses are not going to support the investigating officer in this regard. So, it will only a wastage of time of the court as well as the investigation agency is concerned to allow the investigation to continue. Considering the fact that the family relationship has been restored on account of the intervention of family members and friends, the pendency of this crime should not be a hurdle for their harmony to continue. So, treating this as exceptional case, this court feels that it is a fit case where the power under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure has to be invoked to quash the proceedings as no Crl.M.C.No.1274 of 2014 :</p><p>6. : effective purpose will be served in allowing the investigation to continue in the matter. So, the application is allowed and further proceedings in Crime No.799/13 of Sreekandapuram Police Station against the petitioners is quashed. Office is directed to communicate this order to the concerned court so as to inform the investigating agency about this for their further action in this regard. Sd/- K.Ramakrishnan, Judge. Bb [True copy] P.A to Judge', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => null, 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'Libeesh Udumbanattu', 'sub' => null, 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $args = array( (int) 0 => '1130983' ) $pattern = '/\(((0[1-9]|[12][0-9]|3[01])[.](0[1-9]|1[012])[.](17|18|19|20)[0-9]{2}).*\)/' $shops2 = nullinclude - APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 39 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
LAW: Section 482 of Code of Criminal, Section 34, Indian Penal Code, Section 34, Indian Penal Code, Section 308 of Indian Penal Code, Prevention of Corruption Act, Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure
GPE: K.RAMAKRISHNAN, THE1, THE1, P.A., Crime, Counsel, F.I.R.
DATE: FRIDAY, 1274 of 2014, 2014, the 28th day of February, 2014, 2014, 2014, 2014, 2014
PERSON: MC.No, RAJESH VATTAPARAMBIL, P.O. KOOTTUMUKHAM, TALIPARAMBA, KOOTTUMUKHAM, TALIPARAMBA, JINSON THENAMKUZHIYIL, TALIPARAMBA, SRI.A.ARUNKUMAR, RESPONDENTRS/, K. Ramakrishnan, Nos, A1 F.I.R., Gian Singh V. State, Sd/- K.Ramakrishnan
CARDINAL: 1, 1, 670, 031, 799, 1 to 3, 3, 323, 324, 2, 3, 323, 324, two, 4, 2012(4, 5, 9, 6
ORG: S/O. JOSEPH, S/O. PATHROSE, AGED30YEARS, S/O. MANI, NEDIYANGA, CHEPPARAMBU DESOM, ADV, SRI.S.R.SREEJITH, RESPONDENTS, NIL, Crime No.799/13 of Sreekandapuram Police Station, Crime No.799/13 of Sreekandapuram Police Station, Public Prosecutor, Sreekandapuram, the High Court, Court, F.I.R, the High Court, the High Court, Crime No.799/13 of Sreekandapuram Police Station
WORK_OF_ART: TALIPARAMBA
ORDINAL: first, first, First, first, first, first, first, first