Disposed

Vahid v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC16 Jun 2011Crl.MC/1456/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

An accused sought to quash criminal proceedings for affray and hurt, citing a settlement with only some complainants. The Court held that since the settlement did not include other injured persons, the proceedings could not be quashed, though the accused could attempt an out-of-court settlement.

What did the court decide?

The criminal miscellaneous case was closed; quashing of proceedings was denied pending a complete settlement with all injured persons.

Vahid Vs State of Kerala — 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

THURSDAY, THE 16TH JUNE 2011 / 26TH JYAISHTA 1933

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 1456 of 2011()

¶6

----------------------------------CC.5183/2010 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-I, IRINJALAKUDA

¶7

PETITIONER: ACCUSED

¶8

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

¶9

VAHID, AGED 30 YEARS, S/O. KAMAL, KAKKATH HOUSE, VALLIVATTOM P.O., THRISSUR DIST., PIN-680 124.

¶10

BY ADVS. SRI.K.I.ABDUL RASHEED

¶11

SRI.K.A.SHAMSUDEEN SMT.BHAMA G. NAIR SRI.V.K.MEETHIANKUNJU

¶12

RESPONDENT(S): STATE & COMPLAINANT

¶13

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

¶14

1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031.

¶15

2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, IRINJALAKUDA, PIN-680 121.

¶16

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. V. MANU

¶17

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

Crl.MC.No. 1456 of 2011()

¶19

ANNEXURE

¶20

ANNEXURE 1	:	COPY OF THE CHARGE SHEET IN C.C. NO. 5183/2010 DT.18.05.01 OF J.F.C.M., IRINJALAKUDA
ANNEXURE 2	:	COPY OF THE DEPOSITION GIVEN BY PW1 SURESH BABU IN CC NO. 20/07 OF J.F.C., IRINJALAKUDA
ANNEXURE 3	:	COPY OF THE DEPOSITION GIVEN BY PW2 RAJESH S/O. VELAYUDHAN IN CC NO. 20/07 OF J.F.C., IRINJALAKUDA
ANNEXURE 4	:	COPY OF THE DEPOSITION GIVEN BY PW3 RAJESH S/O. RAGHAVAN IN CC NO. 20/07 OF J.F.C., IRINJALAKUDA
ANNEXURE 5	:	COPY OF THE DEPOSITION GIVEN BY PW4 SANDEEP IN CC NO. 20/07 OF J.F.C., IRINJALAKUDA
ANNEXURE 6	:	COPY OF THE DEPOSITION GIVEN BY PW5 SUNILKUMAR IN CC NO. 20/07 OF J.F.C., IRINJALAKUDA
ANNEXURE 7	:	COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN C.C. NO. 20/07 DT. 28.01.10 OF J.F.C.M, IRINJALAKUDA
ANNEXURE 8	:	AFFIDAVIT TENDERED BY THE CW1 (PW1 IN CC NO. 20/07)
ANNEXURE 9	:	AFFIDAVIT TENDERED BY THE CW2 (PW3 IN CC NO. 20/07)
ANNEXURE 10	:	AFFIDAVIT TENDERED BY THE CW3 (PW2 IN CC NO. 20/07)

// TRUE COPY //

PA TO JUDGE

smt

THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J.

¶25

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Crl.M.C. No.1456 of 2011

¶26

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

¶27

Dated this the 16^th day of June 2011

¶28

O R D E R

¶29

Petitioner is the accused in Crime No.332 of 2001 of Irinjalakuda Police Station and C.C.No.5183 of 2010 of the court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Irinjalakuda for offences punishable under Secs.143, 147, 341 and 323 r/w Sec.149 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, “the IPC”).

¶30

Case is that on 10.5.2001 at about 4.30 PM petitioner and other accused formed unlawful assembly, wrongfully restrained and voluntarily caused hurt to Cws.1 to 3 and others. Accused 1, 3 and 5 to 7 faced trial and were acquitted as per Annexure-A7 judgment since PWs.1 to 5 examined by the prosecution failed to identify the assailants. Petitioner says that he has settled the matter with CWs.1 to 3 and in the light of the settlement and

¶31

Crl.M.C. No.1456 of 2011

¶32

-: 2 :-

¶33

Annexure-A7 judgment, proceedings against him may be quashed.

¶34

I have heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor.

¶35

Learned counsel submitted that learned Magistrate was not inclined to accept evidences of PWs.1 to 5 examined to prove the alleged incident. It is seen from the above Annexure-A7 judgment that Pws.1 to 5 examined to prove the incident could not identify the assailants. But, Cws.6 and 7 cited to prove the incident were not examined by the prosecution in that case. Hence, petitioner cannot claim advantage of the said acquittal. So far as settlement is concerned, it is seen that Cws.1 to 3 have filed affidavits.

¶36

Other injured persons have not joined the alleged settlement. Hence, based on the alleged settlement, proceeding cannot be quashed.

¶37

Learned counsel submitted that petitioner may be permitted to appear before the trial court through counsel.

¶38

Crl.M.C. No.1456 of 2011

¶39

That is a request which petitioner can urge before learned Magistrate.

¶40

I make it clear that this order will not stand in the

¶41

way of petitioner settling the case with the de facto complainant and all the injured out of court and requesting this Court to quash proceedings on the strength of such settlement.

¶42

With the above observation, this Crl.M.C. is

¶43

closed.

¶44

THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE.

¶45

Jvt

Vahid v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vahid v. State of Kerala

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

Suku Vs Jagdish

K.M.Abdulkareem Vs State of Kerala and Another

Hyder Vs State of Kerala

Santhosh Vs Rajesh Myladoor

Fr.Alias Vs State of Kerala

Thomas Joseph @ Binoy Vs Sub Inspector of Police,Vechoochira