Kerala High Court
Sahad vs State Of Kerala on 10 February, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN
WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 21ST MAGHA,1942
Crl.MC.No.236 OF 2021(H)
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN CC 380/2018 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF
FIRST CLASS -I, ALUVA
CRIME NO.5058/2017 OF ALUVA EAST POLICE STATION , Ernakulam
PETITIONERS:
1 SAHAD
AGED 21 YEARS
S/O. RIYADH, PALLATHUVEETTIL, NEAR THADDIKKAKADAVU
JUMA MASJID, VELIYATHUNADU, ERNAKULAM-683 511.
2 AJAY BABU
AGED 21 YEARS
S/O. M.J.JOHNY, MANGALAPPILLY HOUSE, FRIENDSHIP LANE,
ALUVA-683 101
3 ASHI JOHNY
AGED 24 YEARS
S/O. M.J. JOHNY, MANGALAPPILLY HOUSE, FRIENDSHIP
LANE, ALUVA-683 101.
4 AKSHAY M.R.
AGED 22 YEARS
S/O. RAJAGOPALAKRISHNAN, MANAYKKAPAAMBIL HOUSE,
MACHAMTHURUTH, CHITTATTUKARA, ERNAKULAM-683 522.
5 ADITH V.B.
AGED 22 YEARS
S/O. V.K.BABU, VALLATHERIL VEEDU, VADAKKEKARA,
MOOTHAKUNNAM, ERNAKULAM-683 516.
6 ANUMON
AGED 21 YEARS
S/O. BABU, AMBATTUPRAMBIL HOUSE, PALAPPASSERY,
CHENGAMANAD, ERNAKULAM-683578.
7 SHAHAL
AGED 23 YEARS
S/O. ABDUL RAZAK, KATTINGAL HOUSE, THACHINGANADAM,
PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM-679 325.
8 VISHNU
Crmc 236/2021 2
AGED 23 YEARS
S/O. K.G.RAMADASAN, KEECHERIL VEETTIL, NEAR KSEB
OFFICE, NADAKKAVU, MANAKKUNNAM-682 307.
9 BASIL SCARIA
AGED 22 YEARS
S/O. SCARIA, PELAKUDI HOUSE, ALATTUCHIRA, KODANAD,
ERNAKULAM-683 544.
10 RAGUL MATHEW
AGED 24 YEARS
S/O. MATHEW, KOTTUKAPPILLY HOUSE, PATHAMPARA,
THALIPARAMBA KANNUR-670 141.
11 GRIFFIN JOHN
AGED 24 YEARS
S/O. JOHN, KSEB QUARTERS, NEAR POWER HOUSE, ALUVA,
ERNAKULAM-683 101.
12 NAVEEN DIZON @ THOMAS KUTTY
AGED 20 YEARS
PANICHAYIL HOUSE, THIRUVANIYOOR, KUNNATHUNADU,
ERNAKULAM-682 308.
13 HARIKRISHNAN
AGED 22 YEARS
S/O. SUNIL KUMAR, KOVATTU HOUSE, THURUTHU,
CHENGAMANAD, ERNAKULAM-683 101.
14 INDUJAN
AGED 22 YEARS
S/O. SUNDARARAJ, JB COTTAGE, NEDUMAN KAVU, ADOOR,
PATHANAMTHITTA-689 693.
BY ADV. SRI.C.Y.VINOD KUMAR
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031.
2 SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE
ALUVA EAST POLICE STATION, ALUVA, ERNAKULAM.
3 GOKUL
AGED 21 YEARS
S/O. RAJESH, MATTAPPILLY HOSUE, NEAR PUTHIYAKAVU
DEVI TEMPLE, CHOWARA VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM-683571.
4 ARAVIND KUMAR J
Crmc 236/2021 3
AGED 23 YEARS
S/O. K.J JAYAKUMAR PERUMBILLIL HOUSE, NEAR THAYKARA
CHIRA, PULLUVAHZI KARA, RAYAMANGALAM VILLAGE,
ERNAKULAM-683 541.
R3-4 BY ADV. P.S.PRASOBH
PP-SRI.T.R.RANJITH
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
10.02.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crmc 236/2021 4
V.G.ARUN, J.
===========================
Crl.M.C.No.236 of 2021
===========================
Dated this the 10th day of February, 2021
ORDER
Petitioners are the accused in Crime No.5058 of 2017
registered at the Aluva East Police Station for offences punishable
under Sections 144, 148, 341, 323, 324 r/w 149 of IPC, now
pending as C.C.No.380 of 2018 on the file of Judicial First Class
Magistrate-I, Aluva. The de facto complainant at whose instance
the crime was registered, and the other injured persons are
arrayed as respondents 3, 4 and 5. Annexure A2, Annexure A3
and Annexure A4 affidavits have been filed by the respondents 3,
4 and 5 respectively stating that the dispute has been settled and
that they have no subsisting grievance against the petitioners.
2. Heard the learned Public Prosecutor also, who, on
instructions, submits that, except one, none of the other
petitioners have any criminal antecedents. The antecedent
alleged is involvement in a similar crime which is not serious in
nature.
3. Having considered the gravity of the offences alleged,
nature of the injury caused and having perused the affidavit filed
by the respondents 3, 4 and 5, the contents of which are
submitted to be true and voluntary, I am satisfied that the
dispute is settled and that no public interest is involved in this
matter. The fact that the petitioners and the defacto
complainant/injured were students when the incident took place,
is also taken into consideration. Moreover, in view of the
settlement, possibility of the criminal proceedings ending in
conviction is remote. As such, continuance of the proceedings
will amount to an abuse of process of court and hence, in view
of the legal position set out by the Honourable Supreme Court in
Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab [(2008) 4 SCC 582]
and Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another [(2012) 10
SCC 303], there is no impediment in granting the relief sought.
4. In the result, this Crl.M.C is allowed. The proceedings in
C.C.No.380 of 2018 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate-I,
Aluva is quashed.
Sd/-
V.G.ARUN
JUDGE
lgk
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
ANNEXURE A1 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN
C.C.NO.380/18 ON THE FILE OF THE JUDICIAL
FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE'S COURT-I, ALUVA,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.
ANNEXURE A2 AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 3RD
RESPONDENT/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT.
ANNEXURE A3 AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT/CW2.
ANNEXURE A4 AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT /CW3.
