Allowed

Shajahan K. v. State

Kerala HC30 Mar 2011Crl.MC/893/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal miscellaneous petition, the Kerala High Court allowed the quashing of criminal proceedings against two accused for offences under various sections of the Indian Penal Code. The court found that a valid settlement was reached between the petitioners and the de facto complainants regarding a personal dispute.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Misc. Case is allowed; Final report in Crime No.268 of 2008 and cognizance are made; all proceedings against petitioners quashed.

Shajahan K. Vs State — 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

WEDNESDAY, THE 30TH MARCH 2011 / 9TH CHAITHRA 1933

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 893 of 2011()

¶6

----------------------------(SC NO.403/2010 OF ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC-III), KASARAGOD)

¶7

PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED 2&5

¶8

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

¶9

1. SHAJAHAN K., AGED 24 YEARS,

¶10

S/O.KUNHABDULLA, JAMEELA MANZIL, ATHINJAL, AJANUR VILLAGE, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.

¶11

2. AJMAL, AGED 22 YEARS,

¶12

S/O.IBRAHIM, AMINAZ MANZIL, ATHINJAL, AJANUR VILLAGE, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.

¶13

BY ADV. SRI.K.P.HARISH

¶14

RESPONDENT(S): STATE & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT AND INJURED/ Cws 1 & 2

¶15

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

¶16

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

¶17

2. ABDUL KHADER V.V., AGED 22 YEARS, S/O.ABDULLA, SHAFEEQUE MANZIL, MANIKOTH, AJANUR VILLAGE, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.

¶18

3. ABDUL BASHEER M., AGED 30 YEARS, S/O.MOIDEEN, MADIYAN, MANIKOTH, AJANUR VILLAGE, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.

¶19

R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.J. MOHAMMED ANZAR

¶20

R2,3 BY ADV. SRI.M.REVIKRISHNAN

¶21

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

svs

¶23

THOMAS P JOSEPH, J.

¶24

Crl.M.C.No.893 of 2011

¶25

Dated this 30^th day of March, 2011

¶26

ORDER

¶27

Petitioners are accused 2 and 5 in Crime No.268 of 2008 of Hosdurg Police Station and S.C.No.403 of 2010 of the Additional Sessions Court (Adhoc-III),Kasaragod for offences punishable under Secs.143, 147, 148, 341, 324 and 308 r/w Sec.149 of the Indian Penal Code. Case is that on account of previous enmity, petitioner and other accused formed unlawful assembly, voluntarily caused hurt and attempted to cause death of respondent Nos.2 and 3 with iron rod and cycle chain on 04.05.2008 at about 12.45p.m. Petitioners request this Court to quash proceeding against them on the strength of a settlement reached with respondents 2 and 3. I have heard learned counsel for petitioners, respondents 2 and 3 and learned Public Prosecutor.

¶28

Learned counsel for petitioners and respondents 2 and 3 have confirmed the settlement. Learned counsel for respondents 2 and 3 confirmed authenticity and genuineness of Annexures-AIII, AIV, AIV(a), the agreement signed between the parties and affidavits of respondents 2 and 3. In the said

¶29

Crl.M.C.No.893 of 2011

¶30

-: 2 :-

¶31

documents it is stated that the dispute is settled between parties and respondents 2 and 3 do not intend to proceed with the case. Learned Public Prosecutor after getting instruction confirmed that the parties have settled the dispute.

¶32

It would appear that petitioners and respondents 2 and 3 are youngsters. No other case is also reported against petitioners. Under these circumstances notwithstanding that offences involving public tranquility and peace are also involved, I am inclined to allow the petition since the dispute is personal to and between petitioners and respondents 2 and 3.

¶33

Resultantly this criminal miscellaneous case is allowed. Final report in Crime No.268 of 2008 of Hosdurg Police Station, cognizance taken thereon and all proceedings against petitioners/accused 2 and 5 in S.C.No.403 of 2010 of the Additional Sessions Court (Adhoc-III), Kasaragod are quashed.

¶34

(THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE)

¶35

Sbna/-

¶36

/True Copy/

¶37

P.A to Judge

Shajahan K. v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shajahan K. v. State

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

G.Ambika Vs Devadas & Others

K.P.Hussain Vs Rdo,Perinthalmanna and Another

Habeeb Vs the Sub Inspector of Police

Mahaboob,Aged 42 Years,S/O.Koya Moideen Vs the State:Rep.by the City Traffic Polic

Jyothish K.P. Vs Sarath Kumar

Arumukhan Vs Shaju