Shine vs State Of Kerala
2023 Latest Caselaw 919 Ker

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                 PRESENT
               THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.
         TUESDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF JANUARY 2023 / 27TH POUSHA, 1944
                         CRL.MC NO. 7616 OF 2022
  AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT SC 87/2018 OF I ADDITIONAL SUB COURT,
                                 THRISSUR
PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO 2:
           SHINE
           AGED 37 YEARS
           S/O JOSE, CHALISSERIVALAPPIL VEETIL HOUSE, EDAKKUNNY
           VILLAGE, GRAMODHARANAM DESOM, THRISSUR DISTRICT , PIN -
           680001

              BY ADV THOMAS C.ABRAHAM



RESPONDENT/STATE AND DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:
     1     STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED PUBLIC PROCECUTOR, HIGH COURT
           OF KERALA, KOCHIN, PIN - 682031

     2        SIJO AGED 35 YEARS
              S/O. JOY, PANAMBITHARA HOUSE, OLLUR, THRISSUR
              DISTRICT . , PIN - 680003

     3        JOY S/O. GEORGE, PANAMBITHARA HOUSE, OLLUR, THRISSUR
              DISTRICT 680306. (R3 IS IMPLEADED AS ADDITIONAL R3 AS PER
              ORDER DATED 17.01.2023 IN CRL MA NO 1/2023 IN CRL MC
              7616/2022)

             BY ADVS.
             PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
             VISHNUPRASAD NAIR
             No Advocate


              ADV C S HRITHWIK - SR PP



     THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
17.01.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
                                   2

Crl.M.C No.7616 of 2022




                             ORDER

The petitioner is the 2nd accused in Crime No.2683/2013 of

Ollur Police Station which is now pending as S.C No. 87/2018 on

the files of the First Additional Sessions Court, Thrissur. The

offences alleged against the petitioner and the other accused are

punishable under Sections 341, 324 and 308 read with Section 34

of Indian Penal Code. The 2nd and the 3rd respondents are the

defacto complainants. Annexure-1 is the FIR and Annexure-2 is

the Final Report submitted by the Police. This Crl. M.C is filed for

quashing all further proceedings pursuant to the Annexure-2 as

against the petitioner herein.

2. Heard Sri.Thomas C Abraham, the learned counsel

appearing for the petitioner, Sri. M.P Prashanth, the learned Public

Prosecutor appearing for the State and Sri. Vishnuprasad Nair, the

learned counsel appearing for the 2nd and 3rd respondents.

3. The prayer for quashing the above proceedings is

sought for by the petitioner on the ground that, the dispute

between the parties has been settled and to substantiate the

Crl.M.C No.7616 of 2022

same, the defacto complainants/2nd and 3rd respondents have

sworn Annexure-4 and 5 affidavits. The aforesaid affidavits

indicate that, the matter has been settled and the 2nd and 3rd

respondents have no subsisting grievance against the petitioner

herein. They also conveyed that they have no objection in

quashing the proceedings against the petitioner herein. The

learned counsel for the 2nd and 3rd respondents/defacto

complainants also confirmed the same. The learned Public

Prosecutor upon instructions submitted that the veracity of the

settlement was verified by the Station House officer concerned

and before the SHO also, the 2nd and the 3rd respondent have

reiterated that, they do not have any objection in quashing the

proceedings as they have no subsisting grievance against the

petitioner herein.

4. Going through the materials available on record, it is

discernible that, the dispute is basically private in nature and on

account of settlement arrived at between the parties, no purpose

would be served if the proceedings against the petitioner herein

were allowed to continue. In such circumstances, the chances of a

successful prosecution are very bleak. Therefore, I am of the view

Crl.M.C No.7616 of 2022

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 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure can be invoked.

5. It is true that, one of the one offences is under Section

308 of Indian Penal Code. However, it is discernible from the

records that, no serious injuries were sustained by the defacato

complainants. Moreover, no criminal antecedents of the petitioner

herein is brought to my notice. In such circumstances, I deem it

appropriate to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Section

482 Cr.P.C and quash the proceedings.

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

pursuant to Annexure-2, Final Report in Crime No.2683/2013 of

Ollur Police Station and all further proceedings in S.C.No. 87/2018

which is now pending before the First Additional Sessions Court,

Thrissur, as against the petitioner who is the 2 nd accused are

hereby quashed.

Sd/-

ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A JUDGE rpk

Crl.M.C No.7616 of 2022

APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 7616/2022

PETITIONER ANNEXURES

Annexure 1 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.

2683/2013 OF OLLUR POLICE STATION

Annexure 2 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO.2683/2013 OF OLLUR POLICE STATION

Annexure 3 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 28/10/2019 PASSED BY THE I ADDITIONAL ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE, THRISSUR

Annexure 4 AFFIDAVIT DATED 23/09/2022 SWORN IN BY

Annexure 5 ADDIDAVIT FILED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT