Back
2017 Supreme(Online)(KER) 8433
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
SUNIL THOMAS, J
ARIFUDHEEN @ ARIF – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
Crl.MC/6964/2016
SRI.U.K.DEVIDAS, SRI.PRINSUN PHILIP, SRI.T.R.RANJITH
The court emphasized that mutual settlement and lack of premeditation can warrant quashing criminal proceedings.
Headnote:
Violence - Criminal Procedure - N/A - The court quashed the proceedings against the accused based on the settlement between the parties, the nature of the alleged acts, and the lack of premeditation.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner was accused of trespassing and assaulting the defacto complainant with a knife. The complainant and accused resolved their dispute amicably, seeking to quash the proceedings.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the injuries resulted from a minor altercation using a small knife, without evidence of premeditation, and accepted the settlement between the parties.
Issues: Whether to quash the criminal proceedings based on mutual settlement and the circumstances surrounding the alleged offense.
Ratio Decidendi: The absence of premeditated intent in the altercation and the subsequent resolution of disputes led the court to favor quashing the criminal charges.
Final Decision: All proceedings in C.P.No.34/2016 in Crime No.302/2015 are quashed.
O R D E R
The petitioner herein is the sole accused in C.P.No.34/2006 in Crime No.302/2015 of Tanur Police Station,on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Parappanangadi.
2. The defacto complainant alleged that, on 24/2/2015 at p.m., the accused trespassed into his house and caused bodily injuries on him using a knife. It was alleged that he hit on the chest of the defacto complainant and when he fell down, he hit on the back side also. It was submitted that the parties have resolved their disputes and the second respondent has no objection in quashing the proceedings.
3. Learned Public Prosecutor, on instructions, submitted that the parties have settled their dispute and the petitioner is not involved in any other crime.
4. Though the conduct of the petitioner and the allegations may prima facie appear to be serious of having trespassed into the house of the defacto complainant and attacked both sides of his body with knife, it was pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the only a small knife attached to the nail cutter was used. This is clear from the final report, which also states that the knife attached to the nail cutter alone was used. Petitioner is not involved in any other crime, as submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor.
5. In the light of the above, I am inclined to hold that the dispute arose on the spur of the moment and there is nothing to show that the act done by the petitioner herein is a premeditated one. Hence, I am inclined to take lenient view.
In the result, Crl.M.C.is allowed. All further proceedings in C.P.No.34/2016 in Crime No.302/2015 of Tanur Police station, on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Parappanangadi stand quashed.
