Allowed

P.Rasheed v. the Station House Officer

Kerala HC9 Nov 2010Crl.MC/4174/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed a revision petition under Section 482 CrPC to quash criminal proceedings for setting fire to a shop and causing loss of property. The court held that since the allegations were purely personal and the disputes had been amicably settled with the consent of the parties, continued prosecution was not in the interest of justice.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Misc. Case No. 4174 of 2010 and Session Case No. 252/2009 are quashed.

P.Rasheed Vs the Station House Officer — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR TUESDAY, THE 9TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 18TH KARTHIKA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 4174 of 2010 (D)

¶4

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

¶5

CRIME NO.135/2008 PF HOSDRUG POLICE STATION. SC.252/2009 of SESSIONS COURT, KASARAGOD

¶6

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 TO 3

¶7

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

¶8

1. P.RASHEED, AGED 26 YEARS, PALATTU HOUSE, ATHINHAL, AJANOOR VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.

¶9

2. P.JAFAR @ JABIR, AGED 25 YEARS, S/O.MUHAMMED @ MUHAMMED KUNHI, ARABIKADATHU HOUSE,

¶10

ATHINHAL, AJANOOR VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.

¶11

3. MUHAMMEDALI, AGED 30 YEARS, S/O.KUNHABDULLA, PAKKIKADATHU HOUSE, ATHINHAL, AJANOOR VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.

¶12

BY ADV. SRI.T.MADHU

¶13

RESPONDENTS/ STATE

¶14

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

¶15

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

¶16

2. P.ABDUL KAREEM, AGED 43 YEARS, W/O.KUNHABDULLA HAJI, FANZEER MANZIL, ATHINJAL, AJANOOR VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.

¶17

3. LAINAKALILLATH PATHUNHI @ FATHIMA, W/O.ABDUL RAHIMAN HAJI, AGED 47 YEARS, NAVEEL MANZIL, ATHINHAL, AJANOOR VILLAGE,

¶18

HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.

¶19

R1 PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, SRI.I.V.PRAMOD R2 & R3 BY ADV. SMT.SHAMSEERA. C.ASHRAF

¶20

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THEVK FOLLOWING:

¶21

¶22

M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J.

¶23

=========================== CRL.M.C.No. 4174 OF 2010 ===========================

¶24

Dated this the 9^th day of November,2010

¶25

ORDER

¶26

Petitioners are the accused and respondents 2 and 3 the de facto complainant and the owner of the building, which was allegedly set fire by petitioners in S.C.252/2009 on the file of Sessions Court, Kasaragod taken cognizance for the offence under section 436 read with section

¶27

34 of Indian Penal Code on Annexure A2 final report submitted under sectiion 173(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure. Prosecution case is that due to the political enemity with respondents 2 and 3, as they belong to Indian National League petitioners who are workers of Indian Union Muslim League, in furtherance of their

¶28

common intention on the early morning of 25.2.2008 at about 3.30 a.m. set fire to shop No.13/888 of Ajanoor Grama Panchayat, where

¶29

Crl.M.C.4174/2010 2

¶30

second respondent is conducting a shop in sale of dinner set in the building belonging to the third respondent and thereby caused a loss of about

¶31

Rs.1.5 lakhs by setting fire to the table, tarpaulin and other articles. Petition is filed under section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the proceedings contending that entire disputes were subsequently settled amicably and consequent to the settlement, respondents 2 and 3 have no subsisting grievance against the petitioners and therefore it is not in the interest of justice to continue the prosecution.

¶32

Respondents 2 and 3 appeared through a counsel and filed separate affidavits stating that they have settled all the disputes with the petitioners as first petitioner is the cousin brother of the second respondent and other petitioners are their friends and in view of the settlement the case is to be quashed.

¶33

Third respondent in her affidavit stated

¶34

that the building was rented out to the second

¶35

Crl.M.C.4174/2010 3

¶36

respondent and as the disputes are settled, she has no objection for compounding the case and she has no intention to prosecute the case further.

¶37

Learned Public Prosecutor on instruction submitted that statement of respondents 2 and 3 recorded establish that they have settled all the disputes with the petitioners.

¶38

Annexure A2 final report establishes that offences alleged against the petitioners are purely personal in nature, against the second respondent who is conducting the trade in that shop belonging to the third respondent. The affidavit filed by respondents 2 and 3 establishes that they have settled all the disputes with the petitioners amicably, due to the intervention of mediators. As held by the Apex Court in Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab (2008(3) KLT 19) when the offences alleged are purely personal in nature and the disputes are amicably settled between respondents 2 and 3, it is not in the interest of justice to continue the prosecution as ultimately due to the

¶39

Crl.M.C.4174/2010 4

¶40

settlement there is no likelihood of a successful prosecution.

¶41

Petition is allowed. S.C.252/2009 on the file

¶42

of Sessions Court, Kasaragod is quashed.

¶43

M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE

¶44

tpl/-

¶45

M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J.

¶46

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

¶47

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

¶48

SEPTEMBER,2006

P.Rasheed v. the Station House Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Rasheed v. the Station House Officer

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

Gadhadharan P. Vs Express Publications(Madurai)Ltd. & Ors.

Manoj v. and 5 Others Vs State of Kerala & Another

Mujeeb and Another Vs State of Kerala and Another

Nikesh Vs S.I. of Police

K.Muhammed Vs State of Kerala

Simi Mathew Vs State of Kerala