Kerala High Court
Shyam vs State Of Kerala on 16 April, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
FRIDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF APRIL 2021 / 26TH CHAITHRA, 1943
Crl.MC.No.1437 OF 2021(H)
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC 673/2017 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE
OF FIRST CLASS ,PERAMBRA
CRIME NO.597/2017 OF PERAMBRA POLICE STATION , KOZHIKODE
PETITIONERS/ACCUSED:
1 SHYAM, AGED 33 YEARS
SHIVADASAN,MIUSHARIKANDI HOUSE,
KALLODU,PERAMBRA,KOZHIKODE-673525.
2 JITHIN LAL @ SHALU, AGED 28 YEARS
S/O.RAVEENDRAN,ALAKKADMEETHAL,
VALYAKODE,PERAMBRA,KOZHIKODE-673525.
3 PRASOON, AGED 37 YEARS
S/O KUNJIRAMAN,THACHARATHKANDITHAZHE,
KALLODU,PERAMBRA,KOZHIKODE673525.
4 PRADEEPKUMAR, AGED 49 YEARS
S/O NARAYANAN,PADINJAREYIL HOUSE,
PERAMBRA,KOZHIKODE-673525.
5 SHAJU, AGED 46 YEARS
S/O RAMAN KUTTYKOLARATH HOUSE,
PERAMBRA,KOZHIKODE-673525.
6 NIKHIL, AGED 29 YEARS
S/O VELAYUDHAN,MAMBAREMMAL HOUSE,
PERAMBRA, KOZHIKODE-673525.
BY ADV. SRI.MANSOOR.B.H.
RESPONDENTS/STATE & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM-682031.
2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER
PERAMBRA POLICE STATION,
KOZHIKODE DIST.673525.
Crl MC 1437/21
2
3 SHAMSEER, AGED 31 YEARS
S/O HUSSAIN,PANAKKAL HOUSE,CHAVATTU,
KURUDIMUKKU,KOYILANDY,KOZHIKODE-673305.
BY ADVS.
SRI.B.H.ANSIL
SRI RAMESH CHAND
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
16.04.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl MC 1437/21
3
O R D E R
The petitioners are the accused in C.C.No.673/2017
on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court,
Perambra arising out of Crime No.597/207 of Perambra
Police Station, for having allegedly committed the offences
punishable under Sections 341, 323, 342, 506(1), 384 r/w
Section 149 of IPC.
2. The de facto complainant is the 3 rd respondent
herein, who has appeared through Adv. B. H Ansil and has
filed affidavit as Annexure B stating that the matter has
been amicably settled and that he has no existing
grievance against the petitioners. The offences alleged are
purely personal in nature and no serious prejudice will be
caused to the public if the settlement is recognised.
Further, possibility of the case ending in conviction is also
very remote, if not impossible due to the said settlement.
Recognising the said settlement augurs better in the
interests of all.
3. Reliance can be placed on the decisions in Gian
Crl MC 1437/21
Singh v. State of Punjab [2012 (4) KLT 108], Narinder
Singh and Others v. State of Punjab and Another
[(2014) 6 SCC 466)] and Yogendra Yadav and Others
v. State of Jharkhand [(2014) 9 SCC 653] for
recognizing the settlement entered into by the parties.
4. In view of the settlement arrived at between the
petitioners and 3rd respondent, the petitioners are entitled
to get the proceedings quashed under Section 482 of the
Cr.P.C. It is also pertinent to note that the petitioners do
not have any criminal antecedents.
In the result, the Crl.M.C.is allowed and the entire
proceedings against the petitioners in C.C.No.673/2017 on
the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court,
Perambra arising out of Crime No.597/207 of Perambra
Police Station, stands quashed under Section 482 of the
Cr.P.C.
Sd/-
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
RR JUDGE
Crl MC 1437/21
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
ANNEXURE A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT
IN CRIME NO.597/2017 OF PERAMBRA
POLICE STATION.
ANNEXURE B AFFIDAVIT OF THIRD RESPONDENT.
