Allowed

Ayoob and Another v. State of Kerala and Another

Kerala HC4 Nov 2010Crl.MC/3919/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court quashed criminal proceedings under IPC sections 308, 427, and 506 relating to hurt arising from a personal dispute. Relying on Madan Mohan Abbot, the Court held that once an amicable settlement was reached between the accused and the injured, continuing prosecution was not in the interest of justice.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings in C.P. 17/2010 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Aluva were quashed.

Ayoob and Another Vs State of Kerala and Another — Quashing and FIR | Kerala HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR THURSDAY, THE 4TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 13TH KARTHIKA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 3919 of 2010() ------------------------CP.17/2010 of JUDL.FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT I, ALUVA .................... (CRIME NO.2712/2009 OF ALUVA POLICE STATION) .....

¶3

PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED NOS.1 AND 2:

¶4

------------------------------------------------------------1. AYOOB, S/O.KUNJUMOHAMMED, AGED 33 YEARS, BUSINESS, CHITHAKUDATH HOUSE, ULIYANNUR PO, KADUNGALLUR VILLAGE,PARAVUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶5

2. SHANIF, S/O.MUSTHAFA, AGED 26 YEARS, DRIVER,PANACHIKUZHI, ULIYANNUR P.O., KADUNGALLUR VILLAGE, PARAVUR TALUK,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶6

BY ADV. SRI.P.M.ZIRAJ

¶7

RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT:

¶8

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

¶9

1. STATE OF KERALA REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HONOURABLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM REP.BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ALUVA POLICE STATION IN CRIME NO.2712/2009.

¶10

2. AHAMMED KABEER, AGED 40 YEARS, S/O.KUNJUMOHAMMED, BUSINESS, CHITHAKUDATHU HOUSE, ULIYANNUR P.O., KADUNGALLUR VILLAGE,PARAVUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶11

R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. P.A. SALIM R2 ADV. SRI.JOSE MATHEW

¶12

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶13

Kss

¶14

M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J.

¶15

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

¶16

CRL.M.C.No. 3919 OF 2010

¶17

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

¶18

Dated this the 4^th day of November,2010

¶19

ORDER

¶20

Petitioners are the accused and second

¶21

respondent the de facto complainant and the injured in C.P.17/2010, on the file Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Aluva taken cognizance on Annexure II final report for the offence under sections 308, 427 and 506(ii) read with section 34 of Indian Penal code. Prosecution case is that due to the previous enemity with the second respondent, petitioners in furtherance of their common intention at about 10.10 p.m. on 17.10.2009 caused hurt to the second respondent after trespassing into his residential house and if second respondent

¶22

had not resisted the over act of the petitioners when an injury was inflicted on his neck with a sword, his death would have been

¶23

Crl.M.C.3919/2010 2

¶24

caused and petitioners thereby committed the offences including one under section 308. Petition is filed under section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the proceedings contending that entire disputes were settled amicably with the second respondent and consequent to the settlement, it is not in the interest of justice to continue the prosecution.

¶25

Second respondent appeared through a counsel and filed an affidavit stating that first petitioner is his brother and he has settled all the disputes with the petitioners and he has no subsisting grievance against the petitioners and has no objection for quashing the proceedings.

¶26

Learned counsel appearing for petitioners second respondent and learned Public Prosecutor were heard.

¶27

Learned Public Prosecutor on instructions submitted that statement of second respondent shows that it is settled.

¶28

Annexure II final report shows that the

¶29

Crl.M.C.3919/2010 3

¶30

offences alleged the petitioners are purely personal against the second respondent . The affidavit filed by second respondent establishes that he has settled all the disputes with the petitioners. As held by the Apex Court in Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab(2008(3)KLT 19) when the offences alleged against petitioners are purely personal in nature and there is an amicable settlement of the disputes between the accused and the injured, it is not in the interest of justice to continue the prosecution.

¶31

Petition is allowed. C.P. 17/2010 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Aluva is quashed.

¶32

M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE

¶33

tpl/-

¶34

M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J.

¶35

W.P.(C).NO. /06

¶36

--------------------JUDGMENT

¶37

SEPTEMBER,2006

Ayoob and Another v. State of Kerala and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ayoob and Another v. State of Kerala and Another

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

Asokan B. Vs State of Kerala

D.Rajendran Vs Advocate Rajesh.B.Nair

Jinesh @ Kuttan Vs Biju

Abhilash Vs Kesavan

Rijith Krishnan Vs Krishnanunni.M.a

Mary Benjamin Vs Fr.Mathew Pulimmoottil