Allowed

Abdul Vahab v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC4 Dec 2015Crl.MC/7487/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Ten accused persons challenged prosecution in a session court, arguing amicable settlement with the de facto complainant and injured parties. The single-judge bench found the settlement genuine, noted no public interest issue, and held that continuance would waste court time, quashing the proceedings under Section 482 CrPC.

What did the court decide?

The prosecution in the pending session case and the connected case were quashed; petitioners released from prosecution and bail bonds discharged.

Abdul Vahab 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

FRIDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2015/13TH AGRAHAYANA, 1937

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 7487 of 2015 ()

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER IN SC 11/2014 of D.C.& SESSIONS COURT,MANJERI DATED CRIME NO. 31/2011 OF PERINTHALMANNA POLICE STATION , MALAPPURAM

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED::

¶8

1. ABDUL VAHAB AGED 24 YEARS

¶9

S/O.SAIDALAVI, KALAMBARAMBAN HOUSE, CHERAKKAPARAMBU

¶10

ANGADIPPURAM, PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶11

2. ISMAYIL, AGED 28 YEARS

¶12

S/O.IBRAHIM, CHALLAPPURATH, ANGADIPPURAM

¶13

CHERAKKAPARAMBU, PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶14

3. ABDUL LATHEEF AGED 30 YEARS

¶15

S/O.IBRAHIM, CHALLAPPURATH, ANGADIPPURAM

¶16

CHERAKKAPARAMBU, PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶17

4. JAFFAR AGED 29 YEARS S/O.ABDHUL GAFOOR, PERAYIL, CHERAKKAPARAMB EAST

¶18

ANGADIPPURAM PERITHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶19

5. THAJUDHEEN, AGED 24 YEARS

¶20

S/O.EANU, PATHARI, ANGADIPPURAM

¶21

CHERAKKAPARAMBU, PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶22

6. MUNEER AGED 29 YEARS

¶23

S/O.MUHAMMED ALI, PERUMBAN CHERAKKAPARAMB EAST

¶24

ANGADIPPURAM, PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶25

7. MUHAMMAD SHAFFI AGED 26 YEARS

¶26

S/O.POOKOYA, PANAYATHIL, CHERAKKAPARAMB EAST

¶27

ANGADIPPURAM, PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶28

8. MUHAMMAD SHABEER AGED 25 YEARS

¶29

S/O.MUHAMMAD ALI, PERAYIL HOUSE, CHERAKKA PARAMB EAST

¶30

ANGADIPPURAMPERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶31

9. MUBARAK AGED 29 YEARS

¶32

S/O.SAIDALAVI, KALAMPARAMBIL, CHERAKKAPARAMBU

¶33

ANGADIPPURAM, PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶34

10. SHOWKKATHALI AGED 25 YEARS S/O.EBRAHIM, CHELLAPPURAM, CHERAKKAPARAMBU EAST ANGADIPPURAM PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶35

BY ADV. SRI.C.M.KAMMAPPU

¶36

RESPONDENT(S)/STATE & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT/INJURED:

¶37

1. STATE OF KERALA REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM 682 031(THROUGH STATION HOUSE OFFICER KOLATHUR POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT)

¶38

2. SHAFEEK, AGED 49 YEARS

¶39

S/O.ABDUL AZEEZ, KARIMBANAKKAL HOUSE, CHOLAKULLAM CHERAKKAPARAMBU, PERINTHALMANNA MALAPPURAM DISTRICT 676 123.

¶40

3. ABDUL AZEEZ, AGED 49 YEARS S/O.MUHAMMAD, KARIMBANAKKAL HOUSE, CHOLAKULLAM CHERAKKAPARAMBU, PERINTHALMANNA MALAPPURAM DISTRICT 676 123.

¶41

4. SUBAIDA, AGED 46 YEARS

¶42

W/O.ABDUL AZEEZ, KARIMBANAKKAL HOUSE, CHOLAKULLAM CHERAKKAPARAMBU, PERINTHALMANNA MALAPPURAM DISTRICT 676 123.

¶43

5. SHAMSHAD,, AGED 18 YEARS

¶44

S/O.ABDUL AZEEZ, KARIMBANAKKAL HOUSE, CHOLAKULLAM CHERAKKAPARAMBU, PERINTHALMANNA MALAPPURAM DISTRICT 676 123.

¶45

R3 & 5 BY ADV. SMT.N.S.FATHIMATH SUHRA R BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶46

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04-122015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶47

Crl.MC.No. 7487 of 2015 ()

¶48

APPENDIX

¶49

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶50

A: CERTIFIED COPY OF FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO.31/2011.

¶51

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS

NIL

//TRUE COPY//

PA TO JUDGE

avk

P.UBAID, J.

Crl.M.C.No.7487 of 2015

¶58

Dated this the 4^th day of December, 2015

¶59

ORDER

¶60

The petitioners herein are the ten accused in S.C. No.11/14 of the Court of Session, 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, 448, 323, 506 (1), 427, r/w 149 of Indian Penal Code on the complaint of one Shafeek, who is the 2^nd respondent in this proceeding brought under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He has filed affidavit to the effect that he has settled the whole dispute with the accused, and he have no grievance or complaint now. The other persons who sustained injuries in the alleged incident are the respondent Nos. 3 to 5 in this proceeding. They have also filed affidavit to the effect that they have settled the whole dispute with the accused, and they have no grievance or complaint now.

¶61

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 in pending proceedings,

¶62

Crl.M.C.No.7487 of 2015 2

¶63

if the parties have really settled the whole dispute amicably out of court, 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 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, and I am satisfied that the parties are now on quite cordial terms. 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. The connected case pending as C.P No.13/2015, also stands quashed on settlement.

¶64

In the result, this petition is allowed. The prosecution against the petitioners in S.C. No.11/14 of the Court of Session, 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.

Sd/-

P.UBAID JUDGE

//TRUE COPY//

PA TO JUDGE

avk

Abdul Vahab v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abdul Vahab 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

Sujatha Vs Beena Anandan

Biju Usman Vs State of Kerala

Rajesh Kumar R. Vs Hridaya Pushpan

Asokan Vs State of Kerala

Pallath Nazar Vs State of Kerala

Subith Vs State of Kerala