Allowed

Aryalathil Nasar @ Abdul Nasar v. Baburajan

Kerala HC12 Jan 2010Crl.MC/90/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala, treating this as a Criminal Misc. Case, allowed a petition for quashing criminal proceedings (C.C.646/2007 and C.C.637/2004) under Section 482 CrPC. The court held that since the disputes were settled amicably and co-accused were acquitted, continuing the prosecution against the petitioner was not in the interest of justice.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Misc. Case No. 90 of 2010 and Criminal Case No. 637 of 2004 were quashed.

Aryalathil Nasar @ Abdul Nasar Vs Baburajan — 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

TUESDAY, THE 12TH JANUARY 2010 / 22TH POUSHA 1931

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 90 of 2010()

¶6

-------------------------------CC.646/2007 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, MALAPPURAM ....................

¶7

PETITIONER/ACCUSED

¶8

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

¶9

ARYALATHIL NASAR @ ABDUL NASAR, AGED 37 YEARS, S/O.MUHAMMED HAJI, CHERUKAVU AMSOM, CHEVAYUR DESOM.

¶10

BY ADV. MR.P.VENUGOPAL.

¶11

RESPONDENTS/DEFACTO-COMPLAINANT/INJURED WITNESSES & STATE:

¶12

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

¶13

1. BABURAJAN. K, AGED 40 YEARS, S/O.SEKHARAN, KOTHERI HOUSE, PARAVUR-PO, PULIKKAL, CHERUKAVU AMSOM & DESOM, ERNAD TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶14

2. K. SEKHARAN, AGED 47 YEARS, S/O.SEKHARAN, KOTHERI HOUSE, PARAVUR-PO, PULIKKAL, CHERUKAVU AMSOM & DESOM, ERNAD TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶15

3. K. VELAYUDHAN, AGED 49 YEARS, S/O.CHELLI, MELEPUTHIYAPARAMBATH PAMBADI HOUSE, VELLARU AMSOM & DESOM, KOTTAPURAM, ERNAD TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶16

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

¶17

R4 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.S.U. NAZAR. R1 TO R3 BY ADV. MR.VIPIN NARAYAN .

¶18

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

rs.

¶20

M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J.

¶21

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

¶22

CRL.M.C.No. 90 OF 2010

¶23

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

¶24

Dated this the 12^th day of January,2010

¶25

ORDER

¶26

Petitioner was the third accused in C.C.180/2000 on the file of Judicial First

¶27

Class Magistrate Court, Malappuram. As petitioner and first accused were absconding the case as against them was split up and refiled as C.C.637/2004 and the other accused

¶28

were tried by the learned Magistrate. As per judgment dated 10.4.2004, those accused were

¶29

acquitted. As the petitioner was absconding the case as against him was split up and refiled as C.C.646/2007 and the original first accused was acquitted after trial by the

¶30

learned Magistrate under Annexure B judgment.

¶31

This petition is filed under section 482 of

¶32

Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the case pending against them contending that the entire

¶33

Crl.M.C.No.90/2010

¶34

¶35

disputes were settled with the injured and in view of the order of acquittal as against the other accused and the settlement, it is not in the interest of justice to continue the prosecution.

¶36

Respondents 1 to 3 the injured in the case

¶37

appeared through a counsel and filed an affidavit stating that entire disputes were settled amicably and they have no subsisting grievance against the petitioner and therefore there is no objection for quashing the proceedings.

¶38

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor were heard.

¶39

The prosecution case is that five accused formed themselves into an unlawful assembly with the common object of causing hurt to respondents 1 to 3 and in furtherance of the common object, voluntarily caused hurt to respondents 1 to 3 and committed offences under sections 143, 147, 148,

¶40

323, and 324 read with section 149 of Indian Penal Code. Annexure B judgment shows that after accused 2,4 and 5 were acquitted by learned

¶41

Crl.M.C.No.90/2010 3

¶42

Magistrate in C.C.180/2000, when the first accused was tried, only one of the injured was examined and examination of all other prosecution witnesses was dispensed with and first accused was acquitted. The affidavit filed by respondents 1 to 3 establish that there was an amicable settlement of all the disputes with the petitioner. In view of the settlement, even without considering the order of acquittal as against the co-accused, it is clear that there is no likelihood of a conviction, even if petitioner is tried. In such circumstances, it is not in the interest of justice to continue the prosecution.

¶43

Petition is allowed. C.C.637/2004 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court,

¶44

Malappuram is quashed.

¶45

tpl/-

¶46

M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE

¶47

M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J.

¶48

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

¶49

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

¶50

SEPTEMBER,2006

Aryalathil Nasar @ Abdul Nasar v. Baburajan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aryalathil Nasar @ Abdul Nasar v. Baburajan

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

V.C.Muneer Vs S.I.Police

P.K.Ammad Vs Thazhekkuniyil Saleena and Another

Ashraf Vs State of Kerala

R.Gopinathan Pillai Vs State of Kerala

Sudheep.S. Vs State of Kerala

Kalathil Abu Vs Kalathil Abdul Rasheed