Kerala High Court
Mathew Thomas Aged 29 Years vs Krishnankutty on 24 November, 2014
Author: P.Ubaid
Bench: P.Ubaid
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.UBAID
MONDAY,THE 24TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2014/3RD AGRAHAYANA, 1936
Crl.MC.No. 6441 of 2014 (A)
---------------------------
AGAINST Bail Appl. 2815/2011 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA
AGAINST SC 183/2012 of D.C.& SESSIONS COURT,PATHANAMTHITTA
PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED:
------------------------------------------
1. MATHEW THOMAS AGED 29 YEARS
S/O.THOMAS, KOCHUVEETTIL HOUSE
CHITTAR SEETHATHODE VILLAGE, RANNI TALUK
PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.
2. RAJEEV R.M. AGED 18 YEARS
S/O.MOHANAN, RAJEEV BHAVANAM
CHITTAR SEETHATHODE VILLAGE, RANNI TALUK
PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.
3. SATHYAPRIYAN AGED 22 YEARS
S/O.ANILKUMAR, THONIKKAYATHU HOUSE
CHITTAR SEETHATHODU VILLAGE, RANNI TALUK
PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SRI.V.R.MANORANJAN (MUVATTUPUZHA)
RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANTS:
------------------------------------------------------
1. KRISHNANKUTTY, AGED 59 YEARS
S/O.KUNJACHAN, RESIDING AT VALUPARAMBIL HOUSE
CHITTAR SEETHATHODU VILLAGE, MEENKUZHY
PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT-689667.
2. MOHANAN, AGED 43 YEARS
S/O.GOPALAN, RESIDING AT ERUNICKAL VEETTIL HOUSE
CHITTAR SEETHATHODU VILLAGE, MEENKUZHY
PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN-689667.
3. VIJAYAN, AGED 46 YEARS
S/O.KOCHUKUNJU, RESIDING AT MUTTUVANPOIKAIL HOUSE
CHITTAR SEETHATHODU VILLAGE, MEENKUZHY
PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN-689667.
lmp ...2
4. PRAMON, AGED 22 YEARS
S/O.KRISHNANKUTTY, RESIDING AT VALUPARAMBIL VEEDU
CHITTAR SEETHATHODU VILLAGE
MEENKUZHY AND PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT-689667.
5. DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN-689645.
6. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF
KERALA AT ERNAKULAM.
R1-R4 BY SRI.V.SETHUNATH
R5 & R6 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR P.MAYA
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24-11-2014,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
lmp
Crl.MC.No. 6441 of 2014 (A)
--------------------------------------
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS
-----------------------------------
ANNEXURE 1: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THIS COURT IN B.A.NO.2815/11 IN
CRIME NO.10/2011 OF CHITTAR POLICE STATION.
ANNEXURE 2: TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT (CHARGE SHEET)
ANNEXURE 3: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTARIZED AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE
RESPONDENTS 1 TO 4
RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS - NIL
--------------------------------------
//TRUE COPY//
P.A. TO JUDGE
lmp
P.UBAID, J.
~~~~~~~~~~
Crl.M.C No.6441 of 2014
~~~~~~~~~~~
Dated this the 24th November, 2014
O R D E R
The petitioners herein are the accused in S.C No.183 of 2012 of the Sessions Court, Pathanamthitta. Crime in the said case was registered under Sections 341, 323 and 506
(ii) of Indian Penal code and also under Section 3 (1) (x) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short 'the Act'), on the complaint of one Krishnankutty that the petitioners herein assaulted him and humiliated him on the ground that he belongs to scheduled caste. Now the petitioners seek orders under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on the ground that they and the complainant have amicably settled the whole dispute, and the complainant has no grievance or complaint now. Being a prosecution involving an offence under the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, I directed the de facto complainant - Krishnankutty to appear in court in person. Accordingly, he appeared, and I interacted with him as Crl.M.C No.6441 of 2014 2 regards the settlement reported. He submitted before the court that he has settled the matter voluntarily with the accused, and that he has no grievance or complaint.
2. In so many decisions, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the High Court can quash prosecution, if the parties have come to terms, and continuance of prosecution will not serve any purpose. This can be done even in cases involving non-compoundable offences. Here, I find that the dispute is purely personal in nature, though the crime happened to be registered under Section 3 (1) (x) of the Act also. I find a real and genuine settlement here, and I find that the prosecution can be quashed, because in the present circumstances nobody will support the prosecution, and continuance of prosecution will not serve any purpose, other than wasting the precious time of the trial court. It will also cause harm and hardship to both sides.
In the result, this petition is allowed. The prosecution against the petitioner in S.C No. 183 of 2012 of the Court of Session, Pathanamthitta will stand quashed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Accordingly, the Crl.M.C No.6441 of 2014 3 petitioners will stand released from prosecution, and the bail bond, if any, executed by them will stand discharged.
Sd/-
P.UBAID JUDGE ma /True copy/ P.S to Judge