Allowed

Ibrahim v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC4 Jul 2013Crl.MC/231/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal miscellaneous petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the High Court of Kerala allowed the petition and quashed the final report in a case involving offences arising from an unlawful assembly. The Court held that since the matter was amicably settled between the parties and the offences were personal in nature, continuing proceedings would be an abuse of process.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of Annexure A final report in Crime No. 42 of 1999 and all further proceedings pending in C.C. No. 112 of 2003.

Ibrahim Vs State of Kerala — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Kerala HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF JULY 2013/13TH ASHADHA, 1935

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 231 of 2013

¶6

CC 112/2003 of THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, KOZHIKODE CRIME NO. 42/1999 OF PANNIANKARA POLICE STATION , KOZHIKODE

¶7

PETITIONERS:

¶8

IBRAHIM, AGED 49 S/O.MUTHURAVUTHAR, KANJIRAPARAMBIL HOUSE PARAVUTHARAKARA, PARAVOOR VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶9

VINOD @ BASHEER S/O.SIVAN, KANJIRAPARAMBIL HOUSE, PARAVUTHARAKARA PARAVOOR VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶10

ARAFATH

¶11

S/O.SHAHUL HAMEED, RAHMETH HOUSE, KIZHAKEPURAM HOUSE KOTTUVALLY VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶12

BY ADV. SRI.ANIL K.MOHAMMED

¶13

RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT/DE FACTO COMPLAINANT & CHARGE WITNESS NOS. 2 & 3:

¶14

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

¶15

SHAJI

¶16

S/O.VELAYUDHAN, PUTHUKULANGARA HOUSE, PANNIYANKARA KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.

¶17

RAJAMMA

¶18

W/O.VELAYUDHAN, PUTHUKULANGARA HOUSE, PANNIYANKARA KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.

¶19

SAJINI

¶20

W/O.SELVAN, VANIYAN VEEDU, CHEMBUKKAVU THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶21

R2,3,4 BY ADV. SRI.M.K.FAISAL

¶22

R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI RAJESH VIJAYAN

¶23

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 0407-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶24

CRL.M.C. NO. 231/2013 APPENDIX:

¶25

PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:

¶26

ANNEXURE A: CERTIFIED COCPUY OF FINAL RPORT IN CRIME NO. 94 OF 1999 OF PANNIYANKARA POLICE STATION.

¶27

ANNEXURE B: PHOTOCOPY OF JUDGMENET DATED D8/8/2003 IN C.C. NO. 14 OF 2000 OF CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, KOZHIKODE.

¶28

ANNEXURE C: AFFIDAVIT DATED 21/12/2012 SWORN BY 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶29

ANNEXURE D AFFIDVIT DATED 21/12/2012 SWORN BY 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶30

ANNEXURE E: AFFIDAVIT DATED 21/12/2012 SWORN BY 4TH RESPONDENT.

¶31

RESPONDENTS' ANNXURES: NIL

ks.

TRUE COPY

P.S. TO JUJDGE

V.K.MOHANAN, J.

Crl.M.C.No. 231 of 2013 - D

¶37

Dated this the 4^th day of July, 2013

¶38

O R D E R

¶39

The above petition is filed under Section 482 of the

¶40

Criminal Procedure Code (for short 'Cr.P.C.') at the instance of the petitioners, who are accused Nos.1,4 and 5 in C.C.No.112 of 2003 of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court,Kozhikode, which is a case instituted upon the police report in Crime No. 42 of 1999 of Panniyankara Police Station, Kozhikode District for the offences punishable under Sections 143,147,148,452,324,506(II) read with Section 149 of I.P.C. with a prayer to quash Annexure A final report in Crime No.42 of 1999 of Panniyankara Police Station and all further proceedings pursuant to that against the petitioners, which is now pending as C.C.No.112 of 2003 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Kozhikode as the matter is settled out of court.

¶41

The allegation in the above case is that on 24.5.1999 at

¶42

Crl.M.C.No.231 of 2013

¶43

:-2-:

¶44

2 a.m., all the accused formed themselves into an unlawful assembly with deadly weapons and entered into the house of the de facto complainant and when the said act was questioned, they caused hurt to the de facto complainant and intimidated his family members and thereby, the accused have committed the above offences. Now, the case of the petitioners is that the matter is settled out of court between the petitioners and respondents 2 to 4.

¶45

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the

¶46

respondents 2 to 4. I have also heard the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶47

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that during the pendency of the above case, the matter is settled amicably between the parties to the dispute which is the subject matter of the above case. Therefore, the continuation of the proceedings in the above case is abuse of process of law and proceedings.

¶48

The learned counsel for the respondents 2 to 4, who on the

¶49

Crl.M.C.No.231 of 2013

¶50

:-3-:

¶51

basis of specific instruction received from the respondents submitted that the above respondents, who are the de facto complainant and the charge witnesses 2 and 3 do not intend to proceed any further against the petitioners and they have no grievance against them.

¶52

I have carefully considered the above submissions of the respective counsel. Annexure C is the affidavit sworn by the second respondent and Annexure D by the third respondent. I have verified the documents and materials produced along with the above petition. In the given facts and circumstances of the case and especially in the light of the settlement arrived between the parties to the dispute, the learned Public Prosecutor has also no objection in allowing the above petition.

¶53

Having regard to the facts and circumstances involved in

¶54

the case, it can be seen that the offences involved in the above case are only Sections 143,147,148,452,324,506(II) read with Section 149 of

¶55

Crl.M.C.No.231 of 2013

¶56

:-4-:

¶57

I.P.C. which are more or less personal in nature and no public interest is involved. It is pertinent to note that though such offences are involved, the real parties to the dispute approached this Court after having amicably settled the matter. From the submission made by the counsel for respondents 2 to 4, it appears to me that the de facto complainant has no further grievance against the petitioners/ accused in the light of the settlement arrived by them. In this juncture, it is relevant to note the decision of the Honourable Apex Court reported in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab [2012(4) KLT 108] (SC)] which is squarely applicable in the present case. In Gian Singh's case, the Supreme Court has held as follows:-

¶58

“57. The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarised thus: the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal court for compounding the offences under S.320 of the

¶59

Crl.M.C.No.231 of 2013

¶60

:-5-:

¶61

Code. Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz;(i) to secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court. In what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or F.I.R. may be exercised where the offender and victim have settled their dispute would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no category can be prescribed..

¶62

It is further held as follows:-

¶63

“...... ... But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and predominatingly civil flavour stand on different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial,mercandile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry etc. or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. In this category of cases, High Court may quash criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal case would put accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme

¶64

Crl.M.C.No.231 of 2013

¶65

:-6-:

¶66

injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case despite full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim........”

¶67

According to me, in the light of the facts and circumstances involved in the present case and particularly in view of the settlement arrived in the present case, the dictum laid in the above decision is applicable in the present case. According to me, as the parties to the dispute settled the issues amicably, it is the duty of this Court to promote and encourage such settlement, instead of compelling the parties to go on with the dispute. It is pertinent to note that since the matter is settled out of court, in the event of the trial proceeded, there would not have any fruitful prosecution resulting the conviction of the accused, rather the net result would be sheer waste of judicial time and abuse of process of the court and proceedings. Thus, according to me, following the decisions cited supra, this Criminal M.C. can be allowed granting the relief as sought for.

¶68

Crl.M.C.No.231 of 2013

¶69

:-7-:

¶70

In the result, this Crl.M.C. is allowed, quashing Annexure A

¶71

final report in Crime No.42 of 1999 of Panniyankara Police Station and all further proceedings pursuant to that against the petitioners, which is now pending as C.C.No.112 of 2003 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Kozhikode.

¶72

V.K.MOHANAN, Judge

¶73

MBS/

¶74

Crl.M.C.No.231 of 2013

¶75

:-8-:

Ibrahim v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ibrahim 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shafeer Vs State of Kerala

Subran Vs State of Kerala

Sabhapathi Vs State of Kerala

Libi Vs Jayan

Usha George Vs State of Kerala

B.Unnikrishnan Vs the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vacb, SIC-1, Thiruvananthapuram