Allowed

Nidusha and 4 Others v. Anwar and Another

Kerala HC24 May 2011Crl.MC/1060/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed a criminal miscellaneous petition seeking quashment of proceedings against five accused. Due to a genuine settlement, specific gravity of offences involving public tranquility notwithstanding, the court quashed the FIR and cognizance proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Miscellaneous Case allowed; Final report in Crime No. 1039 of 2009 cognizance taken and proceedings in C.C. No. 132 of 2011 quashed.

Nidusha and 4 Others Vs Anwar and Another — Quashing and FIR | Kerala HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 24TH MAY 2011 / 3RD JYAISHTA 1933

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 1060 of 2011()

¶6

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

¶7

CC. NO.132/2011 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATES COURT, N.PARAVUR

¶8

PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED 1-5

¶9

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

¶10

1. NIDHUSHA,S/O.DANASHEELAN,KALATHILVEEDU, KUZHIPALLY,MUNAMBOM.

¶11

2. SAHEESH,S/O.SAMU,KIZHAKEDATHVEETIL, HARBOUR ROAD,KUZHIPALLY,MUNAMBOM.

¶12

3. BINU,S/O.THOMAS ,POYITHARAVEETIL, ANGADI,PALLIPURAM.

¶13

4. PRAJEESH,S/O.RAGHU,EDAMUTTATHUVEETIL, ERIYAD,KODUNGALLUR.

¶14

5. SHAN @ OUSEPH,S/O.JOY,CHALAMANAMMEL, KUZHIPALLY,MUNAMBOM.

¶15

BY ADV. SRI.AMJAD ALI

¶16

RESPONDENT(S): DEFACTO COMPLAINANT & INJURED/STATE

¶17

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

¶18

1. ANWAR,S/O.ASHARAF,THOPPILKAIVALIKAKOM, THANNIPADOM,PARAVOOTHARA,N.PARAVUR,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶19

2. STATE OF KERALA,REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA,REP.STATION HOUSE OFFICER, MUNAMBOM POLICE STATION,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶20

R1 BY ADV. SRI.B.H.ANSIL R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.MANU

¶21

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/05/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

tss

¶23

THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J.

¶24

Crl.M.C. No.1060 of 2011

¶25

-------------------------------------Dated this the 24^th day of May, 2011.

¶26

ORDER

¶27

Petitioners are accused 1 to 5 in Crime No. 1039 of 2009 of Munambom Police Station and C.C.No.132 of 2011 of the court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, North Paravur for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 324 and 326 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. Prosecution case is that on 27.07.2009 at about 8.30 a.m. petitioners due to previous enmity attacked the first respondent/defacto complainant with sticks. Petitioners request to quash proceeding against them on the strength of a settlement reached with the first respondent. I have heard learned counsel for petitioners, first respondent and the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶28

Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that in the signed statement given by first respondent to the Police, it is stated that there was an offer to pay certain amount to the first respondent in connection with his treatment and that it was on the strength of that offer that he agreed to settle the case.

¶29

Learned counsel appearing for first respondent has produced the first respondent in this Court. He stated that he has not given any such statement to the Police and that he does not want any compensation from petitioners. He also stated that he has voluntarily agreed to settle the case with petitioners. He admitted genuineness of the affidavit produced in this Court and

¶30

¶31

Crl.MC No.1060/2011

¶32

the signature therein. Learned counsel for petitioner and first respondent have confirmed the settlement. Learned counsel for first respondent has also confirmed authenticity and genuineness of the affidavit sworn by the first respondent. In that affidavit it is stated that the dispute is settled between him and petitioners and that he has no further grievance against petitioners.

¶33

It is true that offences involving public tranquility are also involved in this case. Petitioners allegedly assaulted first respondent due to previous enmity. Having regard to the nature of the offences alleged and the motive involved, I am inclined to think that the proceeding could be terminated.

¶34

Resultantly Criminal Miscellaneous Case is allowed. Final report in Crime No. 1039 of 2009 of Munambom Police Station, cognizance taken thereon and proceeding against petitioners in C.C.No.132 of 2011 of the court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, North Paravur are quashed.

¶35

THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge.

¶36

cks

Nidusha and 4 Others v. Anwar and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nidusha and 4 Others v. Anwar and 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

Sibi C.P Vs State of Kerala

Deepthimol B.S. and Another Vs State of Kerala and Another

Subair Vs the State of Kerala

Anilkumar Vs State of Kerala

Asha and Another Vs Srekumari and Another

Benny Thomas Vs State of Kerala