Allowed

Shamsudheen and Another v. State of Krala and Another

Kerala HC5 Mar 2010Crl.MC/757/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala quashed criminal proceedings in CC No.45/10 upon the accused filing a petition under Section 482 CrPC. The petitioners and the de facto complainant established via affidavits that the disputes were amicably settled. Relying on Supreme Court precedent, the court held that continuing prosecution was not in the interest of justice due to the settlement.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Misc. Case No.757 of 2010 allowed; Criminal Case No.45/2010 quashed.

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

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 5TH MARCH 2010 / 14TH PHALGUNA 1931

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 757 of 2010()

¶6

-------------------------------------CC.NO.45/10 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE II,PERAMBRA

¶7

PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED 1 & 2:

¶8

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

¶9

1. SHAMSUDHEEN, AGED 35 YEARS, S/O.POKKER, PARAKKUZHIYIL, PARAMBINMUKAL, ULLIYERI.

¶10

2. AMEER, AGED 25 YEARS, S/O.ALIKOYA, PULLARUVEETIL, ULLIYERI, KOYILANDY.

¶11

BY ADV. MR.SANTHARAM.P

¶12

RESPONDENT(S): STATE & DE-FACTO COMPLAINANT:

¶13

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

¶14

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-31.

¶15

2. BINDU, AGED 30 YEARS, W/O.JANARDHANAN, PUNATHIL KANDIYIL HOUSE, KAKKUR, NADUVALLUR.

¶16

R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. K.S.SIVAKUMAR

¶17

R2 BY ADV. MR.K.N.ABHILASH

¶18

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

Kss

¶20

M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J.

¶21

CRL.M.C.NO.757 OF 2010 ------------------------------------------ Dated 5^th March 2010

¶22

O R D E R

¶23

Petitioners are the accused in

¶24

C.C.45/2010 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Perambra taken cognizance for the offences under Section 506(i) and 294(b) read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code on Annexure-2 final report submitted by Sub Inspector of Police, Atholy police station in crime No.207/2009. Petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the cognizance taken and the proceedings pending before the learned Magistrate contending that entire disputes were amicably settled and in view of the settlement, it is not in the interest of

¶25

CRMC 757/10

¶26

¶27

justice to continue the prosecution. Second respondent de facto complainant the person who was threatened, appeared through a counsel and filed an affidavit stating that entire disputes were settled amicably. Joint petition was filed by second respondent along with petitioners stating that subsequently there was an amicable settlement of disputes with petitioners and

¶28

consequent to the settlement there is no subsisting grievance against petitioners and therefore case is to be quashed.

¶29

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, second respondent and learned

¶30

Public Prosecutor were heard.

¶31

Prosecution case is that on

¶32

4/10/2009 at about 5 p.m petitioners in furtherance of their common intention trespassed into steps leading to the house of

¶33

¶34

CRMC 757/10

¶35

second respondent and holding a chopper scolded second respondent with obscene words and also threatened her and later on 7/10/2009 while second respondent and her husband were returning from the hospital at about 10.30. p.m both the accused in furtherance of their common intention attempted to attack them and also threatened them with dire consequences and thereby committed the offences. Affidavit filed by second respondent along with joint petition filed by her establishes that entire disputes were settled amicably. Petitioners have also submitted affidavit filed by husband of second respondent who was also allegedly threatened on the night of 7/10/2009 at 10.30 p.m, stating that entire disputes were settled and he has also no subsisting grievance against

¶36

petitioners. In the light of settlement of

¶37

¶38

CRMC 757/10

¶39

disputes, it is clear that even if petitioners are to be tried, there is no likelihood of a successful prosecution. Offences alleged

¶40

against petitioners are clearly personal in nature as against second respondent. When that disputes were settled as evidenced by affidavit filed by second respondent and her husband, as held by the Apex court in Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab (2008 (3) KLT 19 (SC) it is not in the interest of justice to continue the prosecution.

¶41

Petition is allowed. C.C.45/2010 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Perambra is quashed.

¶42

M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE.

¶43

uj.

Shamsudheen and Another v. State of Krala and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shamsudheen and Another v. State of Krala 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

Edison Vs State of Kerala

P.J.Preman Vs v.a.Rocky

Subair and Others Vs the Station House Officer, Keezhvaipur

Abdul Nazeer K.A. Vs the Station House Officer, Bekal Police

Reji Jacob Vs State of Kerala

Abdul Khader Vs State of Kerala & Another