Allowed

Rasheed v. Shuhaib T.V.

Kerala HC22 Sept 2014Crl.MC/2282/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Six accused sought to quash criminal proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C after settling the dispute with the complainant and paying compensation. The court followed Supreme Court guidelines for non-compoundable offences and quashed the prosecution as it would waste judicial time.

What did the court decide?

The criminal prosecution against the petitioners in C.C 742 of 2011 is quashed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C and the petitioners are released from prosecution.

Rasheed Vs Shuhaib T.V. — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Kerala HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.UBAID

¶4

MONDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2014/31ST BHADRA, 1936

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 2282 of 2014 ()

¶6

AGAINST CC 742/2011 of J.M.F.C., PAYYANNUR CRIME NO. 139/2011 OF PAYANGADI POLICE STATION , KANNUR

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED:

¶8

RASHEED, AGED 26 YEARS, S/O.KASIM, MANDENTAVIDA HOUSE, MATTOOL AMSOM MATTOOL.P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶9

NAFSAL AGED 29 YEARS S/O.SHUKKOOR, MANDENTAVIDA HOUSE, MATTOOL AMSOM MATTOOL.P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶10

GAFOOR AGED 25 YEARS S/O.SALAM, PATHALANTAVIDE HOUSE, MATTOOL AMSOM MATTOOL.P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶11

ASHIQ AGED 27 YEARS S/O.MOIDU, VATTAKKANDI HOUSE, MATTOOL AMSOM MATTOOL.P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶12

NOUFAL AGED 32 YEARS S/O.ABDUL RAHMAN, BEEMAN HOUSE, MATTOOL AMSOM MATTOOL.P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶13

NOUSHAD AGED 30 YEARS S/O.ABDULLA, PARAKKAT HOUSE, MATTOOL AMSOM MATTOOL.P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶14

BY ADVS.SRI.ZUBAIR PULIKKOOL

¶15

SRI.P.S.BINU

¶16

RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT:

¶17

SHUHAIB T.V., AGED 25 YEARS S/O.ABDUL SALAM, THAYATH VALAPPIL HOUSE, MATTOOL AMSOM MATTOOL.P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT.PIN-670 001.

¶18

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

¶19

R1 BY ADV. SMT.P.A.ANEESHA

¶20

R2 BY ADV. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.S.HYMA

¶21

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22-09-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

Crl.MC.No. 2282 of 2014 ()

¶23

APPENDIX

¶24

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶25

ANNEXURE I- TRUE COPY OF THE FIR & POLICE CHARGE IN CRIME NO.139/11 OF PAZHAYANGADI POLICE STATION.

¶26

ANNEXURE II- THE TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT OF 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶27

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS

/TRUE COPY/

P.S TO JUDGE

P.UBAID, J.

~~~~~~~~~~

Crl.M.C No.2282 of 2014

¶34

~~~~~~~~~~~

¶35

Dated this the 22^nd September, 2014

¶36

O R D E R

¶37

The petitioners herein are the six accused in C.C No.742 of 2011 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Payyannur. Crime in the said case was registered on the complaint of one Shuhaib. The offences involved are under Sections 143, 147, 148, 448, 427, 323 and 326 I.P.C. The accused have brought this petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C to quash the prosecution on the ground that they have settled the whole dispute with the de facto complainant, that they have made payment of adequate compensation to the complainant, and that the complainant is not now interested in the prosecution. The said Shuhaib is the 1^st respondent in this proceeding.

¶38

The 1^st respondent has filled affidavit to the effect that he has settled the whole dispute with the accused, that he has received adequate amount of compensation from them, and that he has no complaint or

¶39

Crl.M.C No.2282 of 2014

¶40

¶41

grievance now. The accused have come before this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C for the reason that the offence under Section 326 I.P.C is not compoundable under the law. I do not find any strong, definite and satisfactory material to show prima facie that this case involves the offence punishable under Section 326 I.P.C.

¶42

In Narinder Singh & Others v. State of Punjab and another [2014 (2) KLJ 252], the Hon'ble Supreme Court has made some guidelines for exercise of jurisdiction by High Courts under Section 482 of Cr.P.C in matters involving non-compoundable offences. In this case, the guidelines made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court can well be followed. I am well satisfied that the parties have really settled the whole dispute, and I find that continuance of the prosecution in such a circumstance will not serve any purpose, other than wasting the time of the court. It is reported that the 1^st accused is involved in another crime under Section 498A, I.P.C. That there is such a crime due to some family dispute, or matrimonial dispute, will not dis entitle him for orders under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, because

¶43

Crl.M.C No.2282 of 2014

¶44

¶45

it is not a case involving any public issue or public interest.

¶46

In the result, this Crl.M.C is allowed. The criminal prosecution against the petitioners herein in C.C 742 of 2011 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Payyannur will stand quashed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C and the petitioners will stand released from prosecution. The bail bond executed by the petitioners will stand discharged.

Sd/P.UBAID JUDGE

/True copy/

P.S to Judge

Rasheed v. Shuhaib T.V.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rasheed v. Shuhaib T.V.

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

M.P.Muhammed Vs State of Kerala

Abdul Rahim Vs State of Kerala

Anikumar.N. Vs State of Kerala

A.F.Shajan Vs State of Kerala

A.F.Shajan Vs State of Kerala

Ashfak Naseem Vs Surej