Quashed

K.T.Abdul Samad v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC4 Sept 2015Crl.MC/5968/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala quashed the pending criminal prosecution against four petitioners (accused) under Section 482 Cr.P.C., holding that a genuine amicable settlement had occurred, and continuance of prosecution would serve no purpose given the acquittal of other accused.

What did the court decide?

The pending prosecution against the petitioners in L.P. No.75 of 2005 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Nilambur, is quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

K.T.Abdul Samad Vs State of Kerala — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Kerala HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.UBAID

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2015/13RD BHADRA, 1937

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 5968 of 2015 ()

¶6

LP NO. 75/2005 (C.C.NO.429 OF 2002) ON THE FILES OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT,NILAMBUR

¶7

PETITIONERS/Accused Nos. 1,3,4 &5:

¶8

1. K.T.ABDUL SAMAD, SON OF THARIKUTTY, KANHIRATHODIKA HOUSE, CHERUMUKKU P.O., TIRURANGADI, MALAPPURAM.

¶9

2. K.T. HANEEFA, SON OF THRIKUTTY, SON OF THARIKUTTY, KANHIRATHODIKA HOUSE, CHERUMUKKU P.O., TIRURANGADI, MALAPPURAM.

¶10

3. K.T. YOUSAF,SON OF THARIKUTTY, KANHIRATHODIKA HOUSE, CHERUMUKKU P.O., TIRURANGADI, MALAPPURAM.

¶11

4. K.T. ISMAYIL,SON OF THARIKUTTY, KANHIRATHODIKA HOUSE, CHERUMUKKU P.O., TIRURANGADI, MALAPPURAM.

¶12

BY ADV. SRI.P.K.NIJOY

¶13

RESPONDENTS/State & Complainant:

¶14

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

¶15

2. SUBAIDA, DAUGHTER OF MAMMAD, AGED 38 YEARS,

¶16

KANCHEERANGADAN HOUSE, VARIKKAL, KARULAYI P.O.,

¶17

MALAPPURAM.

¶18

R2 BY ADV. SRI.MAHESH V.MENON R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. SHEEBA M.T.

¶19

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04-09-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

Crl.MC.No. 5968 of 2015 ()

¶21

APPENDIX

¶22

PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURE:

¶23

ANNEXURE A1: CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.256 OF 2002 DATED 11.4.2002.

¶24

ANNEXURE A2: CERTIFIED COPY OF FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO.256 OF 2002 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE JFCM COURT, NILAMBUR.

¶25

ANNEXURE A3: TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT DATED 18-03-2011 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶26

RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURE:

NIL

/TRUE COPY/

P.A. TO JUDGE

P.UBAID, J.

=========================

¶33

Crl.M.C.No.5968 of 2015

¶34

========================= Dated this the 4^th day of September, 2015

¶35

ORDER

¶36

The petitioners herein are the accused Nos.1, 3, 4 and 5 in Crime No.256 of 2002 of the Nilambur Police Station registered under Sections 406 and 498A IPC. The other accused faced trial before the learned Magistrate in C.C.No.429 of 2002, and obtained a judgment of acquittal, when all the material witnesses turned hostile to the prosecution in view of an amicable settlement made by the parties out of Court. As these petitioners could not appear in Court promptly due to some reasons and unavoidable circumstances, their case happened to be split up and re-filed during trial. Later, the case was transferred to the register of long pending cases as L.P.No.75 of 2005. Now, the petitioners seek orders quashing the prosecution on the ground of amicable settlement out of Court, and also on the ground that the very substratum of the prosecution case is totally lost by the acquittal of the others. The defacto complainant in the case is the second respondent herein. She has filed affidavit to the effect that the

¶37

Crl.M.C.No.5968 of 2015 2

¶38

whole dispute stands settled and resolved forever, and she has no grievance or complaint. There is no dispute regarding the fact that the other accused already stand acquitted on settlement. In such a situation, continuance of the prosecution against these petitioners will not serve any purpose other than wasting the precious time of the trial court. The Honourable Supreme Court has held in so many decisions that in such cases where continuance of the prosecution will not serve any purpose, the Court can very well invoke the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., and quash the pending prosecution. Here, I am well satisfied that there is a genuine settlement between the parties. In such a situation, nobody will support the prosecution, if the case against the petitioners goes to trial.

¶39

In the result, the prosecution against the petitioners herein now pending in L.P. No.75 of 2005 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Nilambur will stand quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

¶40

rkj

¶41

//TRUE COPY//

¶42

P.A. TO JUDGE

K.T.Abdul Samad v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.T.Abdul Samad 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

P.Aharidasan Vs State of Kerala

Dinesh Vs State of Kerala

Gopakumar @ Kannan Vs State of Kerala

G.Sreepada Bhat Vs State of Kerala

Mohammed Ismail Vs State of Kerala

Jibi Joseph @ George Vs Jinu @ Marry