Allowed

Abdul Khader v. State of Kerala & Another

Kerala HC5 Mar 2010Crl.MC/760/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Kerala High Court allowed a petition under Section 482 CrPC to quash criminal proceedings. The settlement with the complainant and hostility of prosecution witnesses led the court to hold that continuing prosecution was unjust and futile, quashing the case for the petitioner and co-accused.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings in C.C.553/2009 pending before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kasargod, were quashed.

Abdul Khader Vs State of Kerala & 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 FRIDAY, THE 5TH MARCH 2010 / 14TH PHALGUNA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 760 of 2010() -----------------------CC.553/2009 of CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, KASARAGOD

¶4

(CRIME NO.441/2004 OF MANJESWAR POLICE STATION,KASARGOD)

¶5

PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED:

¶6

----------------------------------------ABDUL KHADER, AGED 29 YEARS, S/O.MOHAMMED, RAZAK MANZIL NEAR GHS UPPALA, UPPALA VILLAGE, KASARAGOD TALUK & DISTRICT.

¶7

BY ADVS. MR.SOJAN MICHEAL, SMT.DHANYA P.ASHOKAN.

¶8

RESPONDENT(S): STATE & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:

¶9

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

¶10

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

¶11

2. MUHAMMED HANEEFA, AGED 40 YEARS, S/O.V.S.SHAMSUDHEEN, FOUSIA MANZIL, BHAVATHI TEMPLE TROAD, UPPALA VILLAGE, KASARAGOD TALUK & DISTRICT.

¶12

R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. I.B.PRAMOD R2 BY ADV. MR.NISHIL.P.S.

¶13

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

¶14

Kss

¶15

M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J.

¶16

------------------------------------------ CRL.M.C.NO.760 OF 2010 ------------------------------------------ Dated 5^th March 2010

¶17

O R D E R

¶18

Petitioner was fifth accused in

¶19

C.C.31/2005 on the file of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kasargod. As accused 1,2,5 and 6 were absconding, accused 3 and 4 alone were tried by the learned Magistrate. By Annexure-III judgment, those accused were acquitted. This petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the proceedings pending before the learned Magistrate as C.C.553/2009,

¶20

contending that as the entire disputes were settled with the de facto complainant, who is the injured, it is not in the interest of justice to continue the prosecution.

¶21

Second respondent appeared

¶22

Crmc 760/10

¶23

¶24

through a counsel and filed an affidavit stating that entire disputes were settled

¶25

and therefore, he has no objection for quashing the proceedings.

¶26

Learned counsel appearing for

¶27

the petitioner, second respondent and learned Public Prosecutor were heard.

¶28

Prosecution case as is clear

¶29

from Annexure-I final report and AnnexureIII judgment in C.C.31/2005, is that six accused formed themselves into an unlawful assembly with the common object to cause hurt to second respondent, due to previous enmity, and in furtherance of the common object committed riot armed with stones, a deadly weapon and threw a stone at second respondent which hit on his right shoulder and thereafter all the accused beat him and

¶30

¶31

Crmc 760/10

¶32

pushed him to the ground and kicked him using their legs and thereby committed offences under Section 143, 147, 148, 323 and 324 read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code.

¶33

Annexure-III judgment shows that

¶34

when second respondent was examined, he turned hostile to the prosecution and

¶35

deposed that he was attacked by

¶36

unidentified persons and the accused were

¶37

not the persons who attacked him. Eye

¶38

witness examined as PW3 also turned hostile. PW2 also did not support the prosecution

¶39

case. In such circumstances, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor did not examine

¶40

the other witnesses. The accused were acquitted. Though the case as against

¶41

accused 1,2 5 and 6 were re-filed as

¶42

¶43

Crmc 760/10

¶44

C.C.28/2007, the judgment establishes that

¶45

even if the remaining accused are to be

¶46

tried, there is no likelihood of a

¶47

successful prosecution consequent to the settlement.

¶48

The affidavit filed by second

¶49

respondent establishes that there has been an amicable settlement of the disputes and consequent to the settlement he has no grievance against the accused. In such circumstances, it is not in the interest of justice to continue the prosecution, as it would only result in unnecessary waste of valuable time of the court when no chance of a successful prosecution. Though the prayer is only to quash the proceedings

¶50

against the petitioner, it is clear that consequent to the settlement there is no

¶51

¶52

Crmc 760/10

¶53

likelihood of a successful prosecution against the other accused also. Hence it is not in the interest of justice to continue the prosecution as against the remaining accused also.

¶54

Petition is allowed. Proceedings pending before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kasargod in C.C.553/2009, after splitting the case as against accused 1,2,5 and 6 is quashed.

¶55

M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE.

¶56

uj.

Abdul Khader v. State of Kerala & Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abdul Khader v. State of Kerala & Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

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

Shamsudheen and Another Vs State of Krala and Another

Reji Jacob Vs State of Kerala