Kerala High Court
Anandan vs State Of Kerala on 17 August, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.
TUESDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF AUGUST 2021 / 26TH SRAVANA, 1943
CRL.MC NO. 2534 OF 2021
CRIME NO.197 OF 2021 OF THRISSUR TOWN EAST POLICE STATION
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
ANANDAN
AGED 46 YEARS
S/O.VARAPPAN, KOLLANNUR THANCHAPPAN HOUSE, ARIMBUR
DESOM, PARAKKAD, ANTHIKKAD, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN
680 018
BY ADV ABRAHAM MATHAN
RESPONDENTS/STATE, VICTIM & DE FACTO COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
ERNAKULAM PIN CODE 682 031.
2 LATHA,AGED 48 YEARS, W/O.SATHYAN, MAPRANAM HOUSE,
VETTUKAD, PUTHUR VILLAGE, OLLUR, THRISSUR DISTRICT,
KERALA, PIN 680 014.
3 STATION HOUSE OFFICER
THRISSUR TOWN EAST POLICE STATION, PIN 680 001.
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI.S.L.SYLAJA (GP)
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
17.08.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.M.C.No.2534/2021 2
ORDER
The petitioner is the sole accused in Crime No.197/2021 of Thrissur
Town East Police Station. The crime was registered under Sections 41 (1)
(d) and 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and was subsequently altered
to one under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code, following an extra
judicial confession made by the petitioner. It is submitted with reference to
Annexure-2 affidavit that the alleged victim has no complaint against the
petitioner. The allegation against the petitioner is that he had snatched a
chain from the victim (2nd respondent in this case) while she was walking
through a road near the Tiruvambady Temple in Thrissur Town.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned
Public Prosecutor for the State of Kerala and the learned counsel appearing
for the 2nd respondent.
3. With reference to the judgment of this Court in
Crl.M.C.No.5886/2016, the judgment of the High Court of Uttarakhand in
W.P.(Crl)No.314/2018 and to the judgment of this Court in
Crl.M.C.No.2057/2014, it is submitted that even an offence under Section
392 of the Indian Penal Code can be quashed in exercise of the jurisdiction
vested in this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
4. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State of
Punjab [2012 (10) SCC 303] and Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai
Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and others vs. State of Gujarat and
another [(2017) 9 SCC 641] has held that considering the facts and
circumstances of a case, where the High Court is satisfied that an amicable
settlement has been arrived between the parties and the offence is not
serious in nature involving mental depravity etc., criminal proceedings may
be quashed, in order to secure the ends of justice.
5. Considering the nature of the offence and keeping in mind the
principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the decisions referred to
above, I am of the opinion that this is a fit case where the inherent
jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure can be invoked to quash the proceedings. Apparently, no public
interest is involved. The chances of a successful prosecution are also
remote. It will be a wastage of judicial time to continue with the prosecution
against the petitioner.
In the result, this Crl.M.C. is allowed. All further proceedings in
Annexure-I FIR and all further proceedings in Crime No.197/2021 of
Thrissur Town East Police Station will stand quashed as against the
petitioner.
sd/-
GOPINATH P.
JUDGE
acd
APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 2534/2021
PETITIONER ANNEXURE
ANNEXURE 1 TRUE COPY OF FIR IN CRIME NO.197 OF 2021
OF THRISSUR TOWN EAST POLICE STATION
DATED 13.2.2021
ANNEXURE 2 TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE
2ND RESPONDENT DATED 29.4.2021.
