Anshad vs Varghese Thomas
2021 Latest Caselaw 23765 Ker

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                PRESENT
               THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.HARIPAL
   TUESDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021 / 9TH AGRAHAYANA, 1943
                   CRL.REV.PET NO. 673 OF 2021
  CRA 84/2017 OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT - II (SPECIAL COURT),
                               KOTTAYAM
        SC 155/2015 OF ASSISTANT SESSIONS COURT, KOTTAYAM
REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED NO. 1:

          ANSHAD
          AGED 27 YEARS
          S/O. RASHEED,
          PADINJAREMATTATHIL HOUSE,
          IRUPPA AREA,
          PERUNNA EAST KARA.
          CHANGANACHERRY.

          BY ADVS.NINU M.DAS
                  S.A.ANAND


RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE:

    1     VARGHESE THOMAS,
          AGED 26 YEARS
          S/O.THOMAS P. JOHN,
          PLATHODAN APARTMENT,
          HIDAYATH NAGAR,
          PERUNNA EAST,
          CHANGANACHERRY - 686101.

    2     STATE OF KERALA
          REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
          HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
          ERNAKULAM - 682031.

          R1 BY ADV. S.ARAVIND
          R2 BY C.S.HRITHWIK, SENIOR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR



     THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 30.11.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 Crl.R.P.No.673 OF 2021               2




                                  ORDER

This is a revision filed under Sections 397 and 401 of the

Code of Criminal Procedure challenging the legality and

correctness of the judgments of the Additional Sessions Court - II,

Kottayam in Crl.A.No. 84/2017. The petitioner, who was the

appellant challenged the correctness of the judgment of the

Assistant Sessions Court, Kottayam in S.C. No. 155/2015 where

petitioner and another faced trial for allegations under Sections 341,

324, 294(b) and 308 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The

petitioner was the first accused. After trial, the trial court found the

second accused not guilty and acquitted him whereas the petitioner

was found guilty of the offences alleged and convicted on all

counts. Appeal was filed canvassing the correctness of the

judgment. Appeal also stands dismissed. Now, correctness of that

finding has been canvassed in this revision.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

petitioner is in judicial custody from 06.11.2021 onwards, that the

matter is settled with the defacto complainant/the first respondent.

In support of the same, he has produced Annexure A affidavit

which indicates that the disputes have been settled out of court, that

he is not interested in prosecuting the petitioner and that all his

grievances have been redressed.

3. Adv. Sri. S. Aravind, the learned counsel for the first

respondent has confirmed the settlement. The learned Senior

Public Prosecutor also, on instructions has endorsed the settlement

reached between the parties. It seems a personal dispute where no

public interest in involved; by settlement of the dispute, no public

interest is hampered. In the light of the settlement reached with the

defacto complainant, the conviction and sentences imposed on the

petitioner are quashed and the petitioner shall be released at once, if

his detention is not warranted for any other purpose.

This Criminal Revision Petition is allowed and the petitioner

shall stand acquitted.

Sd/-

K.HARIPAL

JUDGE

DCS/30.11.2021

APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S ANNEXURE

ANNEXURE A AFFIDAVIT OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT