Yadukrishnan K.A v. State Of Kerala
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS THURSDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF JUNE 2015/21ST JYAISHTA, 1937 --------------------------- CP 16/2015 of JUDICIAL FIRT CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT - I, CHALAKUDY ------------------ PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO. 1 TO 8 :
----------------------------------------------------
1. YADUKRISHNAN K.A.,S/O.ASOKAN, KAITHAVALAPPIL HOUSE, NEDUKUNNU DESOM, KODAKARA VILLAGE, THRISSUR.
2. ALWIN K.A., S/O. ANTU, KOLANKANNY VEEDU, THAZHAKKADAU DESOM, THAZHEKKADU VILLAGE, THRISSUR.
3. RASAK C.S., S/O.SIDDQUE, THRIKKAD ILLATH KOTTAPPURAM DESOM, METHALA VILLAGE, THRISSUR.
4. VIVEK V.V., S/O.VIAJAYN, VENKASSERY HOUSE, ALAGAPPA NAGAR AMBALLOOR VILLAGE, THRISSUR.
5. ARUN CHACKO, S/O.CHACKO, AMBOOKKAL HOUSE, ANNALLOOR, THRISSUR.
6. ANOOP P.A., S/O.AYYAPPAN, PERAMBRAKKARAN HOUSE, NARAYANGADI DESOM KODASSERY VILLAGE, THRISSUR.
7. AJAYAN, S/O.ASOKAN, MATTIL HOUE, MANAKULNAGARA DESOM, KODAKARA VILLAGE, THRISSUR.
8. SHEFEEK K.S., S/O.SHANAVAS, KURIAPPILLY HOUSE, KOTTAPPURAM DESOM METHALA VILLAGE, THRISSUR.
BY ADV. SRI.S.MANU RESPONDENTS :
----------------------
1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
2. AMITH KUMAR, S/O.SIVANANDA, THIRUNTHARA HOUSE, PARAYAKADU DESOM PUTHENCHIRA VILLAGE, THRISSUR-680 682.
3. ARJUANAN, S/O.ANILKUMAR, NAYARUSSERY HOUSE, VALAPPAD BEACH, VALAPPADU VILLAGE, THRISSUR-680 567.
4. BINU MOHAN, S/O.MOHAN, VELAMPARAMBIL HOUSE, POTTA POTTA VILLAGE, THRISSUR-680 722.
5. AJITH, S/O.JANARDANAN, KAIMPARAMBIL HGOUSE, KOMBATHUKADAVU PHTHENCHIRA VILLAGE, THRISSUR-680 682.
6. VISHNU PRASAD S/O.VALSALAN, VALIYAPARAMBIL HOSUE METHULLUPADAM DESOM, PUTHUR VILLAGE, THRISSUR-680 014.
7. SOURABH S/O.SADANANDAN, NAMBIADAN HOUSE, KOMBIDY THAZHEKKADU VILLAGE, THRISSUR-680 683.
R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. S. HYMA R2 TO R7 BY ADV. SMT.SHAMEENA SALAHUDHEEN THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11-06-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
bp
--------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ------------------------------------- ANNEXURE-I: CERTIFIFED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO.2075/2012. ANNEXURE-II: AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2. ANNEXURE-III: AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE RESPONDENT NO.3. ANNEXURE-IV: AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE RESPONDENT NO.4 ANNEXURE-V: AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE RESPONDENT NO.5 ANNEXURE-VI: AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE RESPONDENT NO.6. ANNEXURE-VII: AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE RESPONDENT NO.7 RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS :
NIL.
//TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE bp
ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.
================== Crl.M.C.No. 3508 of 2015 ================== Dated this the 11th day of June, 2015
O R D E R
The petitioners herein are accused Nos.1 to 8 in the impugned Anx.I final report/charge sheet filed in Crime No.2075/2012 of Chalakkudy Police Station, registered for offences under Secs.143, 147, 148, 323, 324 read with Sec.149 of the I.P.C., which has led to the institution of C.P.No.16/2015 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Chalakkudy. It is stated that now the entire disputes between the petitioners and respondents 2 to 7 (defacto complainants) have been settled amicably and that respondents 2 to 7 have sworn to separate affidavits before this Court as per Anxs.II to VII, wherein it is stated that they have settled the entire disputes with the petitioners and that they have no objection in the quashment of the impugned criminal proceedings pending against the petitioners. It is in the light of these aspects that the petitioners have preferred the instant Crl.M.C. with the prayer to quash the impugned criminal proceedings against them.
Crl.M.C.3508/15 - : 2 :- 2.
In a catena of decisions, the Apex Court has held that, in appropriate cases involving even non-compoundable offences, the High Court can quash prosecution by exercise of the powers under Sec.482 of the Cr.P.C., if the parties have really settled the whole dispute or if the continuance of the prosecution will not serve any purpose. Here, this Court finds a real case of settlement between the parties and it is also found that continuance of the prosecution in such a situation will not serve any purpose other than wasting the precious time of the court, when the case ultimately comes before the court.
On a perusal of the petition and on a close scrutiny of the investigation materials on record and the affidavit of settlement and taking into account the attendant facts and circumstances of this case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the legal principles laid down by the Apex Court in the cases as in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab reported in 2013 (1) SCC (Cri) 160 = (2012) 10 SCC 303 and Narinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and anr. reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466, more particularly paragraph 29 thereof, could be applied in this case to consider the prayer for quashment. Accordingly, it is ordered in the interest of justice that the impugned Anx.I final report/charge sheet filed in Crime No.
Crl.M.C.3508/15 - : 3 :- Chalakkudy Police Station, which has led to the institution of C.P.No. 16/2015 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Chalakkudy and all further proceedings arising therefrom pending against the petitioners stand quashed.
With these observations and directions this Crl.M.C. stands finally disposed of.
Sd/- sdk+ ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.S. to Judge