High CourtsSingle Bench

Purushu vs Ganeshan

High Court Of Kerala · Decided on 10 March 2023 · Citation: (2023) 03 KL CK 0105

HON’BLE JUDGES
Bechu Kurian Thomas, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 482 · Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 143, 144, 148, 149, 324, 341, 448
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 1944 Of 2023
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

9 paragraphs · 352 words

Bechu Kurian Thomas, J.

1.

Petitioners have invoked the jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C to quash all proceedings against them.

2.

Petitioners are accused Nos. 1 to 4 in C.C. No.220/2017 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Vadakara arising of out of Crime No.1782/2016 of Vadakara Police Station, registered for the offences under Sections 143, 144, 148, 341, 324, 448 r/w Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 1st respondent is the defacto complainant.

3.

Heard Sri.Zubair Pulikkool, the learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri.Hashim V.H., the learned counsel for the respondents, apart from Smt. Sreeja V., the learned Public Prosecutor.

4.

The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the matter has been settled and hence the proceedings against the petitioners ought to be quashed. It was also submitted that, considering the nature of offences alleged, no purpose would be served by continuing the proceedings.

5.

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].

6.

I have perused Annexure-2 affidavit filed by the 1st 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.

7.

Accordingly, all proceedings against the petitioners in C.C. No.220/2017 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Vadakara arising of out of Crime No.1782/2016 of Vadakara Police Station are quashed.

This Crl.M.C is allowed as above.