Allowed

Muhammadali v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC2 Mar 2015Crl.MC/593/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal reference for quashing proceedings under a non-compoundable offence, the court held that the High Court possesses inherent jurisdiction to quash the FIR and further proceedings if the parties have settled the dispute and continuance of prosecution serves no purpose.

What did the court decide?

The FIR in Crime No.1004/2014 and further proceedings in the Ottappalam Police Station were quashed.

Muhammadali Vs State of Kerala — Quashing and FIR | Kerala HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.UBAID

¶4

MONDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF MARCH 2015/11TH PHALGUNA, 1936

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 593 of 2015 (D)

¶6

CRIME NO. 1004/2014 OF OTTAPALAM POLICE STATION , PALAKKAD DISTRICT

¶7

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 TO 3:

¶8

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

¶9

1. MUHAMMADALI, AGED 75 YEARS, S/O. KUNHAMU, KARUPPEN VEEDU, 19TH MILE, OTTAPPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

¶10

2. NOUFAL, AGED 38 YEARS, S/O. MUHAMMADALI, KARUPPAN VEEDU, 19TH MILE, OTTAPPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

¶11

3. NAMEESH, AGED 28 YEARS, S/O. MUHAMMADALI, KARUPPAN VEEDU, 19TH MILE, OTTAPPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

¶12

BY ADVS.SRI.S.RAJEEV

¶13

SRI.K.K.DHEERENDRAKRISHNAN SRI.V.VINAY

¶14

RESPONDENTS/STATE/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT/VICTIMS :

¶15

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

¶16

(CRIME NO.1004/2014 OF OTTAPPALAM POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD DISTRICT).

¶17

2. JAYARAM , AGED 48 YEARS, S/O. LATE A.P.NAIR, PILLATH HOUSE, POST MUNDAKKOTTUKURISSI, OTTAPPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT-679 101.

¶18

3. RAMANKUTTY NAIR , AGED 77 YEARS, S/O. LATE KESAVA PANICKER, KARATHUDI, POST OTTAPPALAM, OTTAPPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT-679 101.

¶19

(P.T.O.)

¶20

Crl.MC.No. 593 of 2015 (D)

¶21

4. SAMUAL PRAMOD K.P., AGED 51 YEARS, S/O. K.PAUL, SAM VILLA, POST OTTAPPALAM, OTTAPPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT-679 101.

¶22

R2 BY ADV. SRI.K.RAKESH R3 & 4 BY ADV. SRI.A.HAROON RASHEED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, SMT. S. HYMA

¶23

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02-03-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶24

Crl.MC.No. 593 of 2015 (D)

¶25

APPENDIX

¶26

PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS :

¶27

ANNEXURE I : CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.1004/2014 OF OTTAPPALAM POLICE STATION.

¶28

ANNEXURE II: COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF SETTLEMENT DATED 08.01.2015 ENTERED INTO BETWEEN THE PARTIES.

¶29

ANNEXURE III: AFFIDAVIT DTD.23.1.2015 SWORN BY THE SECOND BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT.

¶30

ANNEXURE IV: AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE RESPONDENT NO.3 DATED 08.01.2015.

¶31

ANNEXURE V: AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE RESPONDENT NO.4 DATED 08.01.2015.

¶32

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE

DST

P. UBAID, J.

Crl.M.C.No.593 of 2015

¶38

Dated this the 2^nd day of March, 2015

¶39

The petitioners seek orders quashing the F.I.R and further proceedings in Crime No.1004/2014 of the Ottappalam Police Station, registered under Sections 457 and 427 read with 34 IPC on the complaint of one Jayaram. Orders are sought on the ground of settlement of the dispute by mediation. The victims of offence are the respondent Nos.2 to 4 herein. They have filed affidavit to the effect that they have settled the whole dispute with the accused, and they have no grievance or complaint. Annexure-2 is the copy of the mediation agreement signed by the parties. I am well satisfied that the parties have come to terms amicably out of court.

¶40

In so many decisions, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that even in cases involving non-compoundable offences, the High Court can quash prosecution; be it at the crime stage or at the trial stage or even at the appellate or revision stage; if the parties have really settled the whole dispute or if continuance of

¶41

¶42

Crl.M.C.No.593 of 2015

¶43

prosecution will not serve any purpose. Here, I find a real case of settlement between the parties and I also find that continuance of prosecution in such a situation will not serve any purpose other than wasting the precious time of the court, when the case ultimately comes before the court.

¶44

In the result, this petition is allowed. The F.I.R and further proceedings in crime No.1008/4/2014 of the Ottappalam Police Station will stand quashed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶45

Sd/-

¶46

P. UBAID, JUDGE

¶47

Muhammadali v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Muhammadali 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

Evangelical Social Action Forum Vs Sajimon T.V.

Antony Panakkal Sebastian Vs State of Kerala

Vigil Vs the Sub Inspector of Police

Subair Vs the State of Kerala

Subair Vs the State of Kerala

Suseela Vs State of Kerala