Allowed

Noufal v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC11 Sept 2013Crl.MC/3653/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Misc. Case No. 3653 of 2013 involved a petition by an accused under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash proceedings for offenses punishable under Sections 341, 323, 324, and 308 IPC. The petitioner alleged the matter was settled out of court with de facto complainants. The High Court of Kerala allowed the petition, quashing the proceedings in line with Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, noti

What did the court decide?

Quashed all further proceedings pending against the petitioner in L.P.No.8/2012 of Assistant Sessions Court, Ottapalam, in Crime No.243/2006 of Pattambi Police Station.

Noufal Vs State of Kerala — Quashing and FIR | Kerala HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2013/20TH BHADRA, 1935

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 3653 of 2013 ()

¶6

AGAINST LP 8/2012 of SUB COURT, OTTAPPALAM DATED CRIME NO. 243/2006 OF PATTAMBI POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD

¶7

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

¶8

NOUFAL,

¶9

S/O.HASSAINAR, KULAKATTIL HOUSE, VILAYUR.P.O OTTAPALAM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADVS.SRI.BABU S. NAIR SRI.K.RAKESH

¶11

RESPONDENTS/STATE AND DEFACTO COMPLAINANTS/INJURED:

¶12

1. STATE OF KERALA., REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-31.

¶13

2. RAMACHANDRAN,

¶14

S/O.MADHAVAN, PADINJAREVALAPPIL VEEDU KARINGANADUKUNDU, VILAYUR.P.O, OTTAPALAM PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN-679309.

¶15

3. JAYAPRAKASH, S/O.RAMACHANDRAN, PADINJAREVALAPPIL VEEDU KARINGANADUKUNDU, VILAYUR.P.O, OTTAPALAM PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN-679 309.

¶16

R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.RAJESH VIJAYAN

¶17

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11-09-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

¶19

Crl.MC.No. 3653 of 2013 () ---------------------------

¶20

APPENDIX

¶21

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶22

ANNEXURE-A TRUE COPY OF THE CHARGE SHEET IN CRIME NO.243/2006 OF THE PATTAMBI POLICE STATION.

¶23

ANNEXURE-B TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN TO BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT BEFORE A NOTARY PUBLIC DATED 21-8-2013.

¶24

ANNEXURE-C TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN TO BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT BEFORE THE NOTARY PUBLIC DATED 21-8-2013.

¶25

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : NIL

/ TRUE COPY /

P.A. TO JUDGE

V.K.MOHANAN, J.

Crl.M.C.No.3653 of 2013

¶31

Dated this the 11^th day of September, 2013.

¶32

O R D E R

¶33

The above petition is filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (for short 'Cr.P.C.') at the instance of the petitioner, who is 3^rd accused in Crime No. 243/2006 of Pattambi Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 324, 308 r/w 34 of I.P.C. with a prayer to quash the entire proceedings in L.P.No.8/2012 of Assistant Sessions Court, Ottapalam, as the matter is settled out of court.

¶34

The allegation in the above case is that on 12.5.2006, at or about 5.00 p.m., due to political animosity, the accused attacked respondent nos.2 and 3, while they were coming in a motor car. It is alleged that the first accused stabbed respondent no.2 and caused injury. The other accused assaulted the 3^rd respondent and caused

¶35

Crl.M.C.No.3653 of 2013

¶36

¶37

injuries. The prosecution asserts that unless the de facto complainant moved away, the accused would have caused his death. Now, the case of the petitioner is that the matter is settled out of court with the 2^nd respondent/de facto complainant and the 3^rd respondent/injured, who had sworn into Annexures B and C affidavits.

¶38

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the 2^nd and 3^rd respondents. I have also heard the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶39

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.

¶40

The learned counsel for the 2^nd and 3^rd respondents who on the basis of specific instruction received from the respondents submitted that the above respondents, who are the de facto complainant and the

¶41

Crl.M.C.No.3653 of 2013

¶42

¶43

injured do not intends to proceed any further against the petitioner and they have no grievance against him.

¶44

I have carefully considered the above submissions of the respective counsel. 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.

¶45

Having regard to the facts and circumstances involved in the case, it can be seen that the offences involved in the above case are only under Sections 341, 323, 324, 308 r/w 34 of 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 the 2^nd and 3^rd respondents, it

¶46

Crl.M.C.No.3653 of 2013

¶47

¶48

appears to me that the de facto complainant and the injured have no further grievance against the petitioner/ 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)]. In Gian Singh's case, the Supreme Court has held as follows:-

¶49

“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 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.”

¶50

It is further held as follows:-

¶51

“......... But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and pre-dominatingly civil flavour stand on different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial, mercandile,

¶52

Crl.M.C.No.3653 of 2013

¶53

¶54

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

¶55

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 proceeding with the trial, 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

¶56

Crl.M.C.No.3653 of 2013

¶57

¶58

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.

¶59

In the result, this Crl.M.C. is allowed, quashing all further proceedings pending against the petitioner in L.P.No.8/2012 of Assistant Sessions Court, Ottapalam, in Crime No.243/2006 of Pattambi Police Station.

¶60

Sd/- V.K.MOHANAN, Judge

¶61

ami/

¶62

//True copy//

¶63

P.A. to Judge

Noufal v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Noufal 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

Praveen Vs S I of Police,Hill Palace Police Station

K.P.Faisal Vs State of Kerala

Muhammed Musthak Vs State of Kerala

Lejukuttan Vs State of Kerala

Sebastian George Vs State of Kerala

Palakkeel Ranjith Vs Ittammal Prakasan