Justin M Abraham vs State Of Kerala
2024 Latest Caselaw 5146 Ker

Kerala High Court

Justin M Abraham vs State Of Kerala on 15 February, 2024

Author: Bechu Kurian Thomas

Bench: Bechu Kurian Thomas

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                   PRESENT
            THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
       THURSDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 26TH MAGHA, 1945
                           CRL.MC NO. 881 OF 2024
         CRIME NO.1491/2015 OF PATHANAMTHITTA POLICE STATION,
                               PATHANAMTHITTA
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT CC 33/2020 OF CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE
                               PATHANAMTHITTA
PETITIONER/ACCUSED 1 AND 2 :
     1     JUSTIN M ABRAHAM, AGED 32 YEARS
           S/O.MAMMEN ABRAHAM, RESIDING AT JUS VILLA,
           PATHALIL, THAZHEVETTIPRAM,
           MYLAPRA VILLAGE AND POST,
           PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT - 689 671.
     2     MAMMEN ABRAHAM, AGED 68 YEARS
           S/O.G.MAMMEN, RESIDING AT JUS VILLA,
           PATHALIL, THAZHEVETTIPRAM,
           MYLAPRA VILLAGE AND POST,
           PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT - 689 671.
           BY ADVS.
           T.MADHU
           C.R.SARADAMANI
RESPONDENT/STATE AND DEFACTO COMPLAINANT :
     1     STATE OF KERALA
           REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
           HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682 031.
     2     THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER
           PATHANAMTHITTA POLICE STATION,
           PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT - 689 645.
     3     NISSAM, AGED 34 YEARS
           S/O.ABDUL NASSER, RESIDING AT ALUNILKUNNATHIL VEEDU,
           KUMBAZHA NORTH MURI, MYLAPRA P.O., KONNI TALUK,
           PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN - 689 671.
     4     ALLEN BABU, AGED 34 YEARS
           S/O.BABURAJ, RESIDING AT SHRAVAN VEEDU,
           KUMBAZHA NORTH, MYLAPRA P.O., KONNI TALUK,
           PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN - 689 671.
           BY ADV ROY THOMAS (PATHANAMTHITTA)
           SRI. M.C. ASHI (PP)
THIS    CRIMINAL   MISC.    CASE   HAVING    COME   UP   FOR   ADMISSION   ON
15.02.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
 CRL.MC NO. 881 OF 2024

                                            2


                          BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J
                   ......................................................
                             Crl.M.C.No.881 of 2024
                     ...................................................
                 Dated this the 15th day of February, 2024


                                        ORDER

Petitioners have invoked the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C

to quash all proceedings against them.

2. Petitioners are accused Nos.1 and 2 in C.C.No.33 of 2020 on the

files of the Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court, Pathanamthitta,

arising out of Crime No.1491/2015 of Pathanamthitta Police

Station, registered for the offences punishable under Sections

294(b), 506(ii), 323, 324, 341 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal

Code, 1860. Respondents 3 and 4 are the defacto complainant

and the injured witness.

3. According to the prosecution, the accused, on 08.06.2015 due to

their previous enmity, assaulted the de facto complainant and

another after wrongfully restraining him and thereby committed

the offences alleged.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned

counsel for the respondents, apart from the learned Public CRL.MC NO. 881 OF 2024

Prosecutor.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the matter

has been settled and hence the proceedings against the petitioners

ought to be quashed. It was also submitted that, considering the

nature of offences alleged, no purpose would be served by

continuing the proceedings.

6. In Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Another [(2012) 10 SCC

303], the Apex Court has held that in appropriate cases, the High

Court can take note of the amicable resolution of disputes

between the victim and the wrongdoer to put an end to the

criminal proceedings. This view was reiterated in Narinder Singh

and Others v. State of Punjab and Another [(2014) 6 SCC 466]

and Yogendra Yadav and Others v. State of Jharkhand and

Another [(2014) 9 SCC 653].

7. I have perused Annexure-A3 and Annexure-A4 affidavits filed by

3rd and 4th respondents. The learned Public Prosecutor has

submitted that upon verification, it is understood that the

affidavits are genuine, and the de facto complainants stand by the

contents thereof. I am satisfied that the matter has been settled CRL.MC NO. 881 OF 2024

and no public interest is involved in this case. There is no

impediment for granting the prayer for quashing. The

continuance of the proceedings will only be an exercise in futility.

Accordingly, all proceedings against the petitioners in C.C.No.33

of 2020 on the files of the Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court,

Pathanamthitta, are quashed.

This Crl.M.C is allowed as above.

sd/-

BECHU KURIAN THOMAS JUDGE AMV/16/02/2024 CRL.MC NO. 881 OF 2024

PETITIONER ANNEXURES

ANNEXURE A1 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR DATED 16/6/2015 IN CRIME NO.1491/2015 OF PATHANAMTHITTA POLICE STATION.

ANNEXURE A2 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT DATED 23/6/2015 IN CRIME NO.1491/2015 OF PATHANAMTHITTA POLICE STATION.

ANNEXURE A3 THE AFFIDAVIT DATED 22/1/2024 SWORN IN BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT.

ANNEXURE A4 THE AFFIDAVIT DATED 22/1/2024 SWORN IN BY THE FOURTH RESPONDENT.

TRUE COPY