Judgments
Judgments
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. High Court Of Kerala
  4. /
  5. 2014
  6. /
  7. January

Sajeesh.N

High Court Of Kerala|20 November, 2014
|

JUDGMENT / ORDER

The petitioners herein are the eight accused in Crime No. 1260/2013 of the Mattannur Police Station. Crime in the said case was registered under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 323, 324, 308 read with 149 IPC, on the complaint of one Sreejith, that the petitioners assaulted him and inflicted injuries on his body with weapons as part of a criminal design made by them, and they inflicted such injuries with the knowledge of consequence that the injuries may cause death. Now, the petitioners seek order quashing the prosecution, on the ground that they and the defacto complainant have come to terms amicably out of court. The defacto complainant, Sreejith is the 1st respondent in this proceeding brought under Section 482 Cr.P.C. He has filed affidavit to the effect that he has settled the whole dispute with the accused, and that they have no grievance or complaint now. It is reported by the prosecution that the petitioners are not involved in any other crime, and they are not persons of bad antecedents. From the affidavit, I am well satisfied that there is a real and genuine settlement between the parties. In so many decisions including Gian Sing Vs. State of Punjab [2012(4) KLT 108(SC)], Narinder Singh and Others v. State of Punjab and Another [2014(2) KLJ 252], the Honourable Supreme Court has made some guidelines for exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The Honourable Supreme Court has held that even in cases involving non- compoundable offences, the High Court can act under Section 482 Cr.P.C., and quash the prosecution; be it at the trial stage, or at the crime stage, or even at the appellate or revisional stage, if the parties have really settled the dispute, and continuance of prosecution will not serve any purpose, or will do harm and hardship to the parties. Here I find a real settlement, and I find that continuance of proceedings further will cause harm and hardship to both sides. On a perusal of records, I find that Section 308 IPC was incorporated in the FIR by the police, purely on the basis of a hypothetical statement. Any way, the parties have really settled the whole dispute, and the complainant has no grievance or complaint now. In the result, this Crl.M.C. is allowed. The FIR and further proceedings in Crime No. 1260/2013 of the Mattannur Police Station will stand quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Sd/-
P. UBAID, JUDGE sd // TRUE COPY // P.A. TO JUDGE
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.
Title

Sajeesh.N

Court

High Court Of Kerala

JudgmentDate
20 November, 2014
Judges
  • P Ubaid
Advocates
  • T B Shajimon Smt Govindu
  • P Renukadevi