Ancy vs Jyothi
2022 Latest Caselaw 6078 Ker

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                            PRESENT
          THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.
   WEDNESDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 11TH JYAISHTA, 1944
                    CRL.MC NO. 5048 OF 2021
PETITIONER/S:

    1     ANCY
          AGED 42 YEARS
          W/O. SHAJI, KALLIPARAMBIL HOUSE, PERINJANAM VILLAGE,
          THRISSUR DISTRICT
    2     SABAN,
          AGED 19 YEARS
          S/O. SHAJI, KALLIPARAMBIL HOUSE, PERINJANAM VILLAGE,
          THRISSUR DISTRICT
    3     MUHAMMED SHIFAS,
          AGED 28 YEARS
          S/O. SHAMSUDEEN, PALLAYIPEEDIKAYIL HOUSE, ERINJANAM
          VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT
    4     SHAJEEK.P.S.,
          AGED 31 YEARS
          S/O. SHAMSUDEEN, PURAKKULAM HOUSE, CHAMAKKALA P.O.,
          THRISSUR DISTRICT
    5     SHINAJ.V.B.
          AGED 31 YEARS
          S/O. BADARUDHEEN, VAIPPINKATTIL, CHALINGAD,
          KAIPAMANGALAM, THRISSUR DISTRICT
    6     SUNNER V.S.
          AGED 28 YEARS
          S/O. SUALIMAN, VALIYAKATH HOUSE, KOORIKUZHI P.O.,
          THRISSUR DISTRICT
          BY ADV V.BINOY RAM


RESPONDENT/S:

    1     JYOTHI
          S/O. GOPALAN, PANDARAPARMABIL HOUSE, PERINJANAM
          VILLAGE, PERINJANAM P.O., KODUNGALUR TALUK, THRISSUR
          DISTRICT,PIN-680 686
    2     STATE OF KERALA,
          REP BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
          ERNAKULAM, PIN-682 031
          BY ADV V.K.SREENATH
 Crl. M.C. No. 5048 of 2021       -2-


OTHER PRESENT:

          ADV VIPIN NARAYAN -SR. PP


      THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON   01.06.2022,   THE   COURT   ON    THE   SAME   DAY   PASSED   THE
FOLLOWING:
 Crl. M.C. No. 5048 of 2021        -3-




                          JUDGMENT

Dated this the 1st day of June, 2022

The petitioners are the accused in Crime No. 752 of 2021 of

Irinjalakuda Police Station which is registered against the petitioners

for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 395, 506, 323,

120B and 149 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. The prosecution case is that the 1st respondent de facto

complainant purchased a mini van bearing registration No. KL-47-J-

8138 from the 1st accused by availing a credit facility from M/s

Mahindra and Mahindra Finance. However, later, he defaulted in

repayment of the installments and thereupon, the petitioners had taken

possession of the vehicle in execution of rights of the financier. As

part of the same, the said vehicle was taken possession on 11.04.2021

at 07:30 a.m. while the 1st respondent complainant was driving his

vehicle through Irinjalakkuda - Thrissur public road.

3. Annexure 1 is the private complaint submitted by the 1 st

respondent and Annexure 2 is the FIR registered upon the same. This

Crl. M. C. is filed for quashing all further proceedings pursuant to

Annexures 1 and 2.

4. Heard Sri. Binoy Ram V., learned counsel for the petitioners,

Sri. V. K. Sreenath, learned counsel appearing for the 1 st respondent

and Sri. Vipin Narayanan, learned Public Prosecutor for the State.

5. The prayer for quashing the proceedings is sought mainly for

the reason that the dispute between the parties has been settled and to

substantiate the same, Annexure 3 affidavit sworn by respondent No. 1

is produced. The fact of settlement is acknowledged in the aforesaid

affidavit and it is also specifically stated that the 1 st respondent has no

subsisting grievances against the petitioners herein. The 1 st respondent

also clearly expressed his no objection in quashing the proceedings

against the petitioners. The learned counsel appearing for the 1 st

respondent also confirms the aforesaid settlement and supports the

prayer sought for by the petitioners herein. The learned Public

Prosecutor upon instructions submits that the veracity of the

settlement was verified by the SHO concerned, by recording the

statement of the de facto complainant and found to be genuine.

6. On going through the nature of allegations as contained in

Annexure 2 FIR, it can be seen that the dispute is basically private in

nature. Considering the settlement arrived at between the parties, the

chances of a successful prosecution are very bleak and hence no

fruitful purpose would be served if the proceedings is allowed to

continue. Therefore, I am of the view that going by the decision in

Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Another [2012 (4) KLT 108],

this is a fit case in which the powers of this Court under Section 482

Cr.P.C. can be invoked.

Accordingly this Crl.M.C. is allowed. All further proceedings in

Crime No. 752 of 2021 of Irinjalakuda Police Station pursuant to the

private complaint filed by the 1 st respondent before the Judicial First

Class Magistrate Court, Irinjalakuda are hereby quashed.

Sd/-

ZIYAD RAHMAN A. A.

JUDGE

Eb ///TRUE COPY/// P. A. TO JUDGE

APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 5048/2021

PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure 1 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE PRIVATE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, IRINJALAKUDA DATED 22.07.2021 Annexure 2 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIRST INFORMATION REPORT DATED 03.08.2021 IN CR NO.752/2021 OF IRINJALAKUDA POLICE STATION Annexure 3 ORIGINAL AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 12.10.2021 Annexure 4 TRUE COPY OF STATEMENT DATED 13.10.2021 FILED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT BEFORE MUNSIFF COURT, KODUNGALLUR