Crl.M.C.No.1719/2012

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: A.M.SHAFFIQUE
THOMAS.P.JOSEPH
Judgment Date: 2012-06-12
Court Decision / Holding: All proceedings against the petitioners in C.P.No.33 of 2011 pending before the JFCM Court-II Attingal arising from Crime No.6 of 2011 of Kilimannoor Police Station are quashed.
Final Disposition: The proceedings against the petitioners are quashed.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

RAKESH @ MIKKU
AMJITH
ANEESH

Respondents

ABHILASH
GIRESH
STATE OF KERALA

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri K.Siju Kamalasanan
• Smt.Bindu George

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri A.Muhammed Raffi
• Sri Noushad Thottathil

Case Synopsis & Summary

This criminal miscellaneous case arises from CP No.33/2011 before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class Court II, Attingal, relating to FIR No.6/2011 of Kilimannoor Police Station. The petitioners, Rakesh alias Mikku; Amjith; and Aneesh, are accused in offences under IPC sections 341, 323, 324, 294(b) and 308 read with section 34. The de facto complainant (1st respondent) has filed an affidavit in Crl.M.A.No.3217/2012 seeking compounding, stating that the matter has been settled and that neither he nor the injured 2nd respondent intends to prosecute the case. Though some offences are not compoundable, Supreme Court authorities in Joshi v. State of Haryana, Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab, Nikhil Merchant v. C.B.I, and Manoj Sharma v. State have laid down that the inherent power under Section 482 CrPC can be invoked to quash proceedings under appropriate circumstances to avoid unwarranted hardship in the interests of justice. Considering the affidavit, the settlement, and the lack of prosecutorial motive, the court held that continuing the prosecution would serve no useful purpose. Applying these principles to the facts, the court quashed all proceedings against the petitioners and disposed of the Crl.M.C.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 482 of CrPCIPC: 341, 323, 324, 294(b) and 308 read with 34

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners contend for quashing under Section 482 CrPC on grounds of settlement between the de facto complainant and the injured party and that continuing proceedings would cause unnecessary hardship. They rely on Supreme Court judgments permitting quashing in the interests of justice, even where offences may be non-compoundable, where the complainant and the injured do not wish to prosecute.

Contentions of Respondents

The document does not elaborate detailed counter-arguments; the court notes the affidavit of settlement and the lack of prosecution intent, and proceeds to apply the legal principles under Section 482 CrPC to examine whether quashing is warranted in the circumstances.

Cited Precedents (4)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Joshi v. State of Haryana	2003(2)KLT 1062(SC)	Positive	Cited to support the proposition that inherent powers under 482 CrPC can be used to quash proceedings even when offences are not strictly compoundable, under suitable circumstances.
Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab	AIR 2008(SC) 1969	Positive	Cited for the principle that compromise and settlement may justify quashing in the interest of justice.
Nikhil Merchant v. C.B.I	2008(3)KLT 769	Positive	Cited to illustrate the scope of quashing where settlements or lack of prosecutorial motive exist.
Manoj Sharma v. State	2008(4)KLT 417	Positive	Cited as supportive authority for quashing proceedings under appropriate circumstances.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE** ## **TUESDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF JUNE 2012/22ND JYAISHTA 1934** ## **Crl.MC.No. 1719 of 2012 ()** ## **------------------------------------** **IN CP.NO.33/2011 of JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT - II , ATTINGAL FIR AND FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO:6/2011 OF KILIMANOOR POLICE STATION** ## **PETITIONERS ACCUSED NOS.1 TO 3** **-----------------------------------------------------** ## **1. RAKESH @ MIKKU,** - **S/O.RAVEENDRA KURUP, AGED 23 YEARS, R.P NIVAS, PULLAYIL, KODUVAZHANNOOR VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** ## **2. AMJITH** - **S/O.BAHULEYAN, B.S BHAVAN, CHERUKKARAM, KODUVAZHANNOOR VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** ## **3. ANEESH** - **S/O.THULASI, REVATHY BHAVAN, PEDIKULAM, PULIMATHU VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM** **BY ADVS.SRI.K.SIJU KAMALASANAN SMT.BINDU GEORGE** ## **RESPONDENTS/DE-FACTO COMPLAINANT & STATE:** **--------------------------------------------------------------------------** ## **1. ABHILASH** - **S/O.MANOHARAN, NEDUNGOTTU VEEDU, ALTHARAMOODU PULLAYIL DESAM, KODUVAZHANNOOR VILLAGE THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 612.** ## **2. GIRESH** **S/O.PUSHPANGATHAN,KONDODIYIL PUTHENVEEDU PULLAYIL DESAM, KODUVAZHANNOOR VILLAGE THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 612.** **MJL** ## **CRLMC.NO:1719/2012** ## **3. STATE OF KERALA** **THROUGH THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE KOTTIYAM POLICE STATION REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA.** **R2 BY ADV. SRI.A.MUHAMMED RAFFI R3 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.NOUSHAD THOTTATHIL** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12-06-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **MJL** ## **CRLMC.NO:1719/2012** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER(S) ANNEXURES:** **ANNEXURE 1. THE COPY OF FIR WITH FIS IN CRIME NO.6/2011 OF KILIMANOOR POLICE STATION.** **ANNEXURE 2. THE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO.6/2011 OF KILIMANOOR POLICE STATION.** ## **RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES: NIL** **/TRUE COPY/** **P A TO JUDGE** **MJL** ## **A.M.SHAFFIQUE, J * * * * * * * * * * * * *** Crl.M.C.No. 1719 of 2012 ---------------------------------------Dated this the 12[th] day of June 2012 ## **O R D E R** This petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing all proceedings against the petitioners in C.P.No.33 of 2011 pending before the JFCM CourtII Attingal arising from Crime No.6 of 2011 of Kilimannoor Police Station. 2. It is alleged that the petitioners were involved in commission of offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 324, 294(b) and 308 read with section 34 of I.P.C. Annexure 1 is the FIR and Annexure 2 is the Charge sheet. 3. The de-facto complainant /1[st] respondent has filed an affidavit along with Crl.M.A.No.3217 of 2012 for compounding the offence. It is stated that the matter has been settled between the parties and he and the injured 2[nd] respondent do not intend to prosecute the case against the petitioners. 4. Though certain offences are not compoundable, in view of the judgments of the Supreme Court in **Joshi v. State of** Crl.M.C..No.1719/2012 2 **Haryana [2003(2)KLT 1062(SC)]Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab [AIR 2008 (S.C.) 1969], Nikhil Merchant v. C.B.I [2008(3) KLT 769]** and **Manoj Sharma v. State [2008 (4) KLT 417]** , the prosecution against the accused can be quashed under certain circumstances. 5. As matters stand settled as is evident from the affidavit and especially in view of the fact that the de facto complainant and injured does not intend to proceed with the case, there is no point in prosecuting the case any further and it will lead to unnecessary hardship to the de facto complainant. Hence the principles adopted in the above judgments can be applied to the facts of this case also. 6. In the above circumstances, all proceedings against the petitioners in C.P.No.33 of 2011 pending before the JFCM Court- II Attingal arising from Crime No.6 of 2011 of Kilimannoor Police Station are quashed. Crl.M.C is disposed of as above. (sd/-) ## **(A.M.SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE)** jsr Crl.M.C..No.1719/2012 3 Crl.M.C..No.1719/2012 4 Crl.M.C..No.1719/2012 5 ## **THOMAS.P.JOSEPH,J.** Crl.M.C.No. of 200 ORDER 19/01/2011