Kerala High Court
Sirajudheen vs State Of Kerala on 31 May, 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
FRIDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF MAY 2024 / 10TH JYAISHTA, 1946
CRL.MC NO. 4460 OF 2024
CRIME NO.713/2017 OF Yeroor Police Station, Kollam
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN CC NO.815 OF 2017 OF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -I, PUNALUR
PETITIONER:
SIRAJUDHEEN
AGED 60 YEARS
S/O ABDUL KADHAR RAWTHER, KANJAVAYAL, YERROOR VILLAGE,
ANCHAL, KOLLAM DISTRICT,KERALA, PIN - 691312
BY ADV NAHAS H.
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
PIN - 682031
2 HUSSAIN
AGED 57 YEARS
S/O A.PEELIKANNU,P.T.NIVAS,KANJUVAYAL, YERROOR VILLAGE,
YERROOR P.O, KOLLAM, PIN - 691312
BY ADV RIZWANA T.N
OTHER PRESENT:
SREEJA V. (PP)
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
31.05.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
CRL.MC NO. 4460 OF 2024
2
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J.
-----------------------------------------
Crl.M.C.No. 4460 of 2024
----------------------------------------
Dated this the 31st day of May, 2024
ORDER
Petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction under Section 482
of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to quash all proceedings
against him.
2. Petitioner is the accused in C.C. No.815 of 2017 on the
files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-I, Punalur,
arising out of Crime No. 713 of 2017 of Yeroor Police Station,
Kollam, registered for the offences under Sections 294(b) and
323 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Second respondent is the
defacto complainant.
3. According to the prosecution, the accused had on
15-05-2017, abused the defacto complainant and assaulted him
and thereby committed the offences alleged.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the
learned counsel for the respondent, apart from the learned
Public Prosecutor.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that
CRL.MC NO. 4460 OF 2024
the matter has been settled and hence the proceedings against
the petitioner 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 affidavit filed by the 2 nd
respondent. The learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that
upon verification, it is understood that the affidavit is genuine,
and the defacto complainant stands by the contents thereof. I
am satisfied that the matter has been settled 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.
8. Accordingly, all proceedings against the petitioner in
C.C. No.815 of 2017 on the files of the Judicial First Class
CRL.MC NO. 4460 OF 2024
Magistrate's Court-I, Punalur are quashed.
This Crl.M.C is allowed as above.
Sd/-
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
JUDGE
AJM/31/5/24
CRL.MC NO. 4460 OF 2024
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
AnnexureA1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE FIR NO. 713/2017
DATED 16/05/2017 FILED BEFORE THE
JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT
-1,PUALUR
AnnexureA2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN
AnnexureA3 AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE DEFACTO
COMPLAINANT/ SECOND RESPONDENT
