Allowed

Muhammed Rafi v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC14 Sept 2015Crl.MC/6066/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal miscellaneous petition, the Kerala High Court quashed the prosecution proceedings against three accused persons. The court found a genuine amicable settlement between the accused and the complainants regarding a dispute, holding that further prosecution would serve no purpose and waste judicial time under Section 482 CrPC.

What did the court decide?

The prosecution in S.C No.410/2014 will stand quashed; petitioners released from prosecution and bail bond discharged.

Muhammed Rafi 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 14TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2015/23RD BHADRA, 1937

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 6066 of 2015

¶6

IN SC 410/2014 OF THE ASSISTANT SESSIONS COURT, MANJERI

¶7

CRIME NO. 389/2011 OF KOLATHUR POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM

¶8

PETITIONERS:

¶9

1. MUHAMMED RAFI, AGED 40 YEARS, S/O.KOYA HAJI, RESIDING AT MELAPURATH HOUSE, P.O.CHEMMALASSERI, PULAMANTHOLE, MALAPPURAM DT.

¶10

2. SAIDALI HAJI, AGED 75 YEARS, S/O.SAIDUTTY, RESIDING AT MELAPURATH HOUSE, P.O.CHEMMALASSERI, PULAMANTHOLE, MALAPPURAM DT

¶11

3. ABDURAHIMAN @ BAPPU, AGED 45 YEARS, S/O.MUHAMMEDKUTTY, RESIDING AT MELAPURATH HOUSE, P.O.CHEMMALASSERI, PULAMANTHOLE, MALAPPURAM DT

¶12

BY ADV. SRI.NIRMAL V NAIR

¶13

RESPONDENTS:

¶14

1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI - 682 011

¶15

2. FASEELA, AGED 34 YEARS,

¶16

D/O.UMMERKUTTY, MELEPARAMBATH HOUSE,

¶17

P.O.CHEMMALLASSERI,

¶18

MALAPPURAM DT.

¶19

3. V.K.UMMERKUTTY, AGED 74 YEARS, S/O.KUNHUNNIYAN HAJI, MELEPARAMBATH HOUSE, P.O.CHEMALLASSERI, MALAPPURAM DT.

¶20

R2,R3 BY ADV. SRI.SURAJ.S

¶21

R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.JUSTIN JACOB

¶22

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14-09-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

Crl.MC.No. 6066 of 2015

¶24

APPENDIX

¶25

PETITIONERS' ANNEXURES:

¶26

ANNEXURE A:COPY OF FIR IN CRIME NO.389/2011 OF THE KOLATHUR POLICE STATION

¶27

ANNXURE B:FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO.389/2011 IN SC.NO.410/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE SUB COURT, MANJERI

¶28

ANNEXURE C:A COPY OF AFIDAVITI FILED BY THE 2ND AND 3RD RESPONDENT

¶29

RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES:

NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.A TO JUDGE

P.UBAID, J.

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

¶36

Crl.M.C No.6066 of 2015

¶37

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

¶38

Dated this the 14^th day of September, 2015

¶39

O R D E R

¶40

The petitioners herein are the three accused in S.C No.410/2014 of the Assistant Sessions Court, Manjeri. They seek orders quashing the prosecution on the ground of amicable settlement of the whole dispute between them and the de facto complainant. Crime in this case was registered under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 324 r/w 149 of the Indian Penal Code on the complaint of one Faseela, who is the 2^nd respondent in this proceeding brought under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The other person who sustained injuries in the alleged incident is the 3^rd respondent in this proceeding. The 2^nd and 3^rd respondents have jointly filed affidavit to the effect that they have settled the whole dispute with the accused, and they have no grievance or complaint now.

¶41

In so many decisions, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that even in cases involving non-compoundable offences, the High Court can quash the prosecution in pending proceedings, if the parties have really settled the whole dispute amicably out of court,

¶42

Crl.M.C No.6066 of 2015 2

¶43

and continuance of the prosecution will not serve any purpose in such a circumstance of amicable settlement. Here, I find a real and genuine case of settlement between the parties. This case happened to be committed as a counter case to the main case, involving the offence under Section 308 IPC. The said case stands settled and quashed. This is not a case involving any public interest or public issue. The parties have come to terms amicably on the intervention of persons acceptable to both sides. In such a situation, continuance of the prosecution will not serve any purpose other than wasting the precious time of the court. No doubt, nobody will support the prosecution in such a situation, if the case goes to trial.

¶44

In the result, this petition is allowed. The prosecution against the petitioners herein in S.C No.410/2014 of the Assistant Sessions Court, Manjeri will stand quashed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Accordingly, the petitioners will stand released from prosecution, and the bail bond, if any, executed by them will stand discharged.

¶45

P.UBAID JUDGE

¶46

Muhammed Rafi v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Muhammed Rafi 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

K.C. Pramod Das Vs State of Kerala

Manaf Vs Safiya

Nissam K.S Vs Jasmin

V.K.Ummerkutty Vs State of Kerala

Gopalakrishnan Vs G. Aswathy

T.N.Ashokan Vs State of Kerala