Allowed

Shaji @ Shajahan v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC25 Jun 2008Crl.MC/2079/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court quashed criminal proceedings against the petitioner for participating in an unlawful assembly causing injury. Although offences were non-compoundable, the Court applied Madan Mohan Abbot to terminate proceedings due to the amicable settlement and private nature of the dispute.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Miscellaneous Case allowed; Criminal Complaint No. 413 of 2008 against the petitioner quashed.

Shaji @ Shajahan Vs the State of Kerala — Quashing and FIR | Kerala HC (2008)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 25TH JUNE 2008 / 4TH ASHADHA 1930

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 2079 of 2008()

¶6

------------------------C.C.NO.413 OF 2008 OF J.M.F.C, KARUNAGAPPALLY CRIME NO.69/89 OF OACHIRA POLICE STATION

¶7

PETITIONER: PETITIONER/ACCUSED 2

¶8

¶9

SHAJI ALIAS SHAJAHAN, S/O.ABDUL SALAM BENGLAVI THARAYIL, OACHITA KARUNAGAPPALLY

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.J.OM PRAKASH

¶11

RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENT]STATE

¶12

¶13

STATE OF KERALA REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶14

ADDL. 2. ISMAIL KUNJU, S/O.ABDUL RAZAK, CHEELANTHARA THEKKETHIL, KOCHUMURIYIL, KRISHNAPURAM.

¶15

(Additional 2^nd respondent is impleaded as per order dated 25.06.08 in Crl.M.Appl. No.3409 of 2008)

¶16

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.JAI GEORGE

¶17

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

R.BASANT, J

¶19

Crl.M.C.No.2079 of 2008

¶20

Dated this the 25^th day of June, 2008

¶21

ORDER

¶22

Petitioner faced an indictment as the 17^th accused in a prosecution for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323 and 324 r/w 149 I.P.C. The crux of the allegations is that on account of a union rivalry the accused persons, who were members of an unlawful assembly, attacked CW1 Ismail Kunju and caused injuries to him. The petitioner as well as the 14^th accused were not available for trial. Trial against the co-accused was proceeded with. Consequent to settlement reached between the parties, the said prosecution ended in acquittal by judgment dated 05.08.1991 in C.C.No.557 of 1989. The case against the 14^th accused and the 17^th accused, (ie. the petitioner herein) was split up. The same has been re-numbered as C.C.413 of 2008 and the same is pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Karunagappally.

¶23

During the pendency of the said proceedings, the petitioner (17^th accused originally and the 2^nd accused in the surviving prosecution) has come before this Court along with the defacto complainant to report to the Court and confirm that the

¶24

Crl.M.C.No.2079 of 2008 2

¶25

disputes have been amicably settled and that the defacto complainant does not want to proceed against the petitioner. The defacto complainant has been brought on the array as the additional 2^nd respondent. The additional 2^nd respondent has entered appearance through counsel. It is confirmed that the matter is settled and the alleged offences have been compounded by the defacto complainant. He does not want to proceed further against the petitioner herein.

¶26

The learned Public Prosecutor was directed to take instructions. The learned Public Prosecutor confirms that the disputes have been settled and the offence has been compounded by the sole victim/defacto complainant.

¶27

Though I am satisfied that the disputes have been settled between the rival contestants amicably, I must note that the offence punishable under Sections 143, 147 and 148 are not compoundable offences and in these circumstances notwithstanding the composition, proceedings cannot be terminated under Section 320 Cr.P.C in view of the embargo in Section 320 Cr.P.C.

¶28

The learned counsel for the petitioner, in these circumstances, relies on the decision in Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab [2008 A.I.R SCW 2287] and contends that in any

¶29

Crl.M.C.No.2079 of 2008 3

¶30

view of the matter a commonsense approach without the unnecessary technicalities of law deserves to be adopted. Nothing useful is likely to come out of the proceedings. The dispute is one which is purely private and personal between the parties. No public policy or public interest is seriously involved. In this view of the matter invoking the dictum in Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab proceedings may be brought to premature termination, it is contended.

¶31

The learned Public Prosecutor does not oppose the said application and I am satisfied in the facts and circumstances of this case that the dictum in Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab can be safely imported and further proceedings can be quashed.

¶32

In the result:

¶33

a) This Crl.M.C is allowed;

¶34

b) C.C.No.413 of 2008 pending before the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Karunagappally in so far as it relates to the petitioner herein is hereby quashed.

¶35

(R.BASANT, JUDGE)

¶36

rtr/-

¶37

Crl.M.C.No.2079 of 2008

¶38

¶39

The learned Public Prosecutor submits that to the knowledge of the State, the defacto complainant/victim has compounded the matter. If they confirm that the principal witnesses have been compounded the matter, the State has no objection in this Court invoking the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash the

¶40

Crl.M.C.No.2079 of 2008 5

¶41

surviving proceedings against the petitioner herein.

¶42

The learned counsel for the petitioner undertakes that

¶43

he shall ensure that the victims do confirm that the matter has been settled between the parties.

¶44

Take all necessary steps within a period of 7 days.

¶45

Call on 25.06.08.

¶46

(R.BASANT, JUDGE)

¶47

rtr/-

Shaji @ Shajahan v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shaji @ Shajahan v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.K. Kuriakose Vs State of Kerala

K.P. Muhammadali Vs Sub Inspector of Police

Simon Abraham Vs v.R.Vikraman Pillai

John Britto Vs Asantha and Another

K.S.Ramachandra Bhat Vs K.S.Sadananda

Sunildeth Vs State of Kerala & Others