SAJI, v. STATE OF KERALA,
Court: High Court of Kerala
Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN
Judgment date:
Case summary
High Court of Kerala judgment dated 2020-12-03. SAJI, v. STATE OF KERALA,. Read the judgment and case details on LawSphereX.
Judgment text
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V. G. ARUN THURSDAY, THE 03RD DAY OF DECEMBER 2020 / 12TH AGRAHAYANA, 1942 Crl. MC. No. 4835 OF 2020(D) NO. 994/2020 OF Kunnathunadu Police Station , Ernakulam SAJI, AGED 52 YEARS S/O. PATHROSE, PATTIKKATTIL HOUSE, VEETOOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. RAJESH ISSAC, AGED 30 YEARS PATTIKKATTIL HOUSE, VEETTOOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BENNY AGED 54 YEARS KOOTTANPARAYIL HOUSE, VEETTOOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BABU AGED 45 YEARS S/O. PATHROSE, KOOTTANPARAYIL HOUSE, VEETTOOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BABY AGED 45 YEARS S/O. PATHROSE, KOOTTANPARAYIL HOUSE, VEETTOOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BENOY AGED 30 YEARS S/O. BENNY, KOOTTANPARAYIL HOUSE, VEETTOOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. @JAISON AGED 18 YEARS S/O. BENNY, KOOTTANPARAYIL HOUSE, VEETTOOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. @CORRECTED AS BLASSON AS PER ORDER DATED 25/11/2020 IN CRL. M. A 2/2020 IN CRL. M. C 4835/2020. BABU PARAMADA HOUSE, MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. Crmc 4835/2020 2 BY ADV. SRI. T. A.
UNNIKRISHNAN RESPONDENT/S: 1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031. 2 AJESH AGED 35 YEARS S/O. KRISHNANKUTTY, KANIYALAKUDIYIL HOSUE, VETTOOR KARA NELLAD, ERNAKULAM, PIN-686 669. 3 RANJITH AGED 35 YEARS S/O. RAJAN, CHALIL PUTHENPURAYIL HOUSE, LAKSHAMVEEDU COLONY, VEETTOORKARA, NELLAD, ERNAKULAM-686 669. R2-3 BY ADV. SHRI. ARJUN KUMAR K. S. SR. PP. C. S. HRITHWIK THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03. 12. 2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Crmc 4835/2020 3 V. G. ARUN, J. =========================== Crl. M. C. No. 4835 of 2020 =========================== rd Dated this the 3 day of December, 2020 ORDER Petitioners are the accused in Crime No. 994 of 2020 registered at the Kunnathunadu Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 323, 325, 294(b) and 149 of IPC.
The de facto complainant, at whose instance the crime was registered and the injured in the case are respondents 2 and 3 respectively. Annexure II affidavit has been filed by the nd rd 2 respondent and Annexure III affidavit by the 3 respondent stating that the dispute has been settled and that they have no subsisting grievance against the petitioners. 2. Heard the learned Public Prosecutor also, who, on instructions, submits that the petitioners have no criminal antecedents. 3. Having considered the gravity of the offences alleged, nature of the injury caused and having perused the affidavit filed nd rd by 2 and 3 respondents, the contents of which are submitted to be true and voluntary, I am satisfied that the dispute is settled and that no public interest is involved in this matter. Moreover, in view of the settlement, possibility of the criminal Crmc 4835/2020 4 proceedings ending in conviction is remote.
As such, continuance of the proceedings will amount to an abuse of process of court and hence, in view of the legal position set out by the Honourable Supreme Court in Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab [(2008) 4 SCC 582] and Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another [(2012) 10 SCC 303], there is no impediment in granting the relief sought. 4. In the result, this Crl. M. C is allowed. The proceedings in Crime No. 994 of 2020 registered at the Kunnathunadu Police Station is quashed. Sd/- V. G. ARUN JUDGE lgk Crmc 4835/2020 5 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: ANNEXURE I CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIRST INFORMATION REPORT IN CRIME NO. 994/2020 OF THE KUNNATHUNADU POLICE STATION. ANNEXURE II AFFIDAVIT OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT, DATED 27. 10. 2020. ANNEXURE III AFFIDAGIT OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 27. 10. 2020.
Source: High Court of Kerala. Dataset: Dattam Labs. CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.