Allowed

C.B.Latheef v. the Station House Officer

Kerala HC12 Jun 2009Crl.MC/501/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

, the High Court of Kerala allowed a Criminal Miscellaneous petition to quash proceedings against accused petitioners arising from political clash. Relying on settled principles and affidavits showing settlement between rival groups, the court quashed Crime No.27/2009 as no purpose would be served by trial.

What did the court decide?

, the Crime No.27/2009 of Kasaragod Police Station is quashed.

C.B.Latheef Vs the Station House Officer — Quashing and FIR | Kerala HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 12TH JUNE 2009 / 22ND JYAISHTA 1931

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 501 of 2009 -------------------------------(CRIME NO. 27/2009 OF KASARGOD POLICE STATION)

¶6

PETITIONERS/ ACCUSED 1 TO 6:

¶7

-----------------------------------------------

¶8

1. C.B. LATHEEF, AGED 28 YEARS, S/O. C.B. MOIDEEN HAJI, RESIDING AT 4TH MILE, ALAMPADY.P.O., KASARGOD DISTRICT.

¶9

2. C.B. MUHAMMED, S/O. MOIDEEN KUNHI, RESIDING AT CHENGALA, PANARKULAM, 4TH MILE, KASARGOD DISTRICT.

¶10

3. K.P. MUHAMMED, AGED 40 YEARS, S/O. ABDULLA, RESIDING AT MENANKODE HOUSE, CHENGALA POST, KASARGOD DISTRICT.

¶11

4. C.A. SHAMSHEER, S/O. C.A. MOIDEEN KUNHI, CHENGALA.P.O., KASARGOD DISTRICT.

¶12

5. ABDUL JASIR, S/O. C.A. MOIDEEN KUNHI, CHENGALA, KASARGOD DISTRICT.

¶13

6. PARA HANEEFA, S/O. C.H. ABDULLA, RESIDING AT RAHMATH NAGAR, CHENGALA POST,KASARGOD DISTRICT.

¶14

BY ADV. MR.MADHU.T.

¶15

RESPONDENTS/ STATE:

¶16

------------------------------------

¶17

1. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, KASARGOD POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶18

CRL.M.C. NO. 501/2009:

¶19

2. Y.MUHAMMED, AGED 31 YEARS, S/O. YOUSUF, RESIDING AT FASEELA MANZIL, SANTHOSH NAGAR, MUTTATHODI VILLAGE, KASARGOD DISTRICT AND TALUK.

¶20

3. SHAHUL HAMEED, AGED 27 YEARS, S/O. ABBAS, CHENGALA VILLAGE, NAIMARMOOLA, KASARGOD TALUK AND DISTRICT.

¶21

R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. AMJAD ALI, R2 & R3 BY ADV. MR.A.SAIN PAUL.

¶22

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

prv.

¶24

M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J.

¶25

================== Crl.M.C. No. 501 of 2009

¶26

==================

¶27

Dated this the 12^th day of June, 2009.

¶28

O R D E R

¶29

Petitioners are accused and respondents 2 and 3 the injured in Crime No.27/2009 being investigated by Kasaragod police for the offences under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 294(b), 323, 324 and 326 read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code. This petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the proceedings contending that there was a settlement of all the disputes between the petitioners and the injured, respondents 2 and 3 and in such circumstances there is no necessity to continue the proceedings. Petition is filed relying on the decision of the Apex Court in Madan Mohan Aboot v. State of Punjab (2008 (3) KLT 19 SC) and Nikhil Merchant v. CBI (2008 (3) KLT 769) as well as Manoj Sharma v. State (2008 (4) KLT 417 SC). Along with the petition affidavits of respondents 2 and 3 sworn before the Notary Public are

¶30

Crl.M.C.No.501/2009

¶31

-2-

¶32

also produced, wherein the injured stated that they have settled the disputes with petitioners due to the intervention of mediators and relatives and they have no intention to proceed with the case and the settlement is necessary for leading a harmonious life. Respondents 2 and 3 are represented by a Counsel.

¶33

Learned counsel appearing for petitioners and respondents 2 and 3 and the learned Public Prosecutor were heard.

¶34

Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the

¶35

crime is under investigation and subsequently statements of injured respondents 2 and 3 were recorded and they have asserted that the disputes were settled and they have no intention to proceed with the case. Learned counsel appearing for petitioners and respondents 2 and 3 submitted that in view of the settlement of the disputes, though the offence is not compoundable invoking the powers of this court under Section 482 of Code of Criminal

¶36

Crl.M.C.No.501/2009

¶37

-3-

¶38

Procedure, the case is to be quashed and no fruitful purpose will be gained by further investigation and undergoing trial.

¶39

Annexure A1 FIR reveals that the incident which culminated in the commission of offences is the result of political clash between two rival groups, the Muslim League, the aggressors and N.D.F., the victims. It is also clear from the admissions in the affidavits of the injured respondents 2 and 3 and the submissions of the Public Prosecutor that the two rival groups have later resolved their disputes. Consequent to the settlement the prospect of deposing in favour of the prosecution and against the petitioners is ruled out. So also there is peace between the two groups. Question is when it is clear from the subsequent settlement evidenced by affidavits of respondents 2 and 3 and submission of learned counsel for respondents 2 and 3 that the injured will not support the prosecution and even if petitioners are to be tried, there cannot be a successful prosecution whether the ordeal of

¶40

Crl.M.C.No.501/2009

¶41

-4-

¶42

undergoing the trial is in the interest of administration of justice. I find that no purpose will be served by undergoing

¶43

a trial, except waste of the valuable time of the court.

¶44