Allowed

Muhammed Shareef v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC2 Mar 2016Crl.MC/1029/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court allowed a criminal miscellaneous petition and quashed further proceedings in a criminal case where the matter was amicably settled between the petitioners and the injured respondents, with trivial injuries and no criminal antecedents reported.

What did the court decide?

All further proceedings in C.C.No.1671/2015 against the petitioners, based on Annexure A Final Report, are quashed.

Muhammed Shareef Vs State of Kerala — Quashing and FIR | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.KEMAL PASHA

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF MARCH 2016/12TH PHALGUNA, 1937

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 1029 of 2016 ()

¶6

CC.NO. 1671/2015 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT - I, OTTAPPALAM CRIME NO. 719/2015 OF CHERUPULASSERY POLICE STATION , PALAKKAD DISTRICT

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED:

¶8

1. MUHAMMED SHAREEF, AGED 20 YEARS, S/O.YUSAPH, THUPPILAKAL HOUSE, THRIKKADEARI P.O., OTTAPALAM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

¶9

2. MUHAMMED SHANEER, AGED 32 YEARS, S/O.HAMSA, KEZHPADAVALLIYALIL HOUSE, THRIKKADEARI.P.O., OTTAPALAM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

¶10

3. HARIS, AGED 24 YEARS, S/O.SAINUDHEEN, KEZHPADAVALLIYALIL HOUSE, THRIKKADEARI P.O., OTTAPALAM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

¶11

4. MANZOOR, AGED 22 YEARS, S/O.UMMERFARUKE, KODATHOTIYIL HOUSE, MUNDOOR P.O., OTTAPALAM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

¶12

5. SHOUKATHALI, AGED 21 YEARS, S/O.MERANKUTTY, KUNIYANKATTIL HOUSE, THRIKKADEARI P.O., OTTAPALAM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

¶13

BY ADV. SRI.JACOB E SIMON

¶14

RESPONDENT(S)/STATE/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:

¶15

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

¶16

2. MUHAMMED ANAS, AGED 25 YEARS, S/O.ABDUL NASAR, NEERAANI HOUSE, THRIKKADEARI P.O., OTTAPALAM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT PIN - 678 592.

¶17

3. ABDUL HAKKEEM, AGED 25 YEARS, S/O.MUHAMMED, PADINGAREKARA HOUSE,

¶18

THRIKKADEARI P.O., OTTAPALAM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. PIN - 678 592.

2/-

sts

-2-

CRL.MC.NO.1029/2016

¶23

4. SHFEEK, AGED 24 YEARS, S/O.ABDUL KHADIR, KRIMBAINVALA HOUSE, THRIKKADEARI P.O., OTTAPALAM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. PIN - 678 592.

¶24

5. MUHAMMED NASEEM, AGED 20 YEARS, S/O.ABDUL SALAM, THIRUDIKAL HOUSE, THRIKKADEARI P.O., OTTAPALAM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. PIN - 678 592.

¶25

R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. MAYA

¶26

R2 TO R5 BY ADV. SRI.S.RENJITH

¶27

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02-03-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶28

sts

¶29

Crl.MC.No. 1029 of 2016 ()

¶30

APPENDIX

¶31

PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES:

¶32

ANNEX-A: TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF EVIDENCE ALONG WITH CHARGE SHEET IN CRIME NO.719/2015, SUBMITTED BY THE CHERPULASSERY POLICE

¶33

ANNEX-B: TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT OF THE RESPONDENT NO.2 TO 5

¶34

RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES:

NIL

/TRUE COPY/

P.S.TO JUDGE

sts

B. KEMAL PASHA, J.

¶40

................................................................ CRL.M.C. No. 1029 of 2016

¶41

............................................................... Dated this the 2^nd day of March, 2016

¶42

O R D E R

¶43

Petitioners are the accused in Crime No.719/2015 of

¶44

the Cherupulasserry Police Station, presently pending as C.C.No.1671/2015 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Ottapalam, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 294(b), 323 and 324 IPC read with Section 149 IPC.

¶45

It seems that the matter has been amicably settled between the petitioners and the defacto complainant

¶46

and the other injured, who are respondents 2, 3, 4 and 5 respectively. They have filed Annexure B affidavit affirming that the matter has been amicably settled between them and the petitioners, and they have no complaints against the petitioners. The injuries sustained to the injured persons are trivial.

¶47

CRL.M.C.No. 1029 of 2016

¶48

-: 2 :-

¶49

No criminal antecedents have been reported

¶50

against the petitioners. When the matter has been amicably settled, no purpose would be served in proceeding with the matter further, and therefore, all further proceedings in C.C.No.1671/2015 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Ottapalam as against the petitioners, based on Annexure A Final Report in Crime No.719/2015 of the Cherupulasserry Police Station, can be quashed.

¶51

In the result, this Crl.M.C. is allowed and all further proceedings in C.C.No.1671/2015 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Ottapalam as against the petitioners, based on Annexure A Final Report in Crime No.719/2015 of the Cherupulasserry Police Station, are hereby quashed.

¶52

Sd/- B. KEMAL PASHA, JUDGE.

¶53

ul/-

¶54

[True copy] P.S. to Judge

Muhammed Shareef v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Muhammed Shareef 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.S.Raj Lal Vs State of Kerala

Asrudheen K.V. Vs State of Kerala

Aneesh K.V. Vs Lalu Kurian

M.Prabhaker Kini Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Tds), Kochi

Aziz Vs State of Kerala

Muhammed Anas Vs State of Kerala