Allowed

Irshad Basheer v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC19 Aug 2016Crl.MC/1037/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal miscellaneous petition, the High Court quashed proceedings against accused persons who had reached an amicable settlement with the de facto complainant for offences including kidnapping attempt. Relying on Section 482 CrPC and Gian Singh, the Court held the offence was personal and quashal served community interests.

What did the court decide?

The petition to quash proceedings in S.C. No. 306 of 2014 is allowed; Annexure I and all further proceedings are quashed.

Irshad Basheer 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 RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF AUGUST 2016/28TH SRAVANA, 1938

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 1037 of 2015 ()

¶6

SC.NO. 306/2014 OF SPECIAL ADDL.SESSIONS COURT (MARADU CASES),KOZHIKODE CRIME NO. 560/2013 OF CHEVAYUR POLICE STATION,KOZHIKODE DISTRICT

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED:

¶8

1. IRSHAD BASHEER, AGED 24 YEARS, S/O.ABDUL BASHEER, PAINGAKULAM MANZHIL,

¶9

ADINADU SOUTH, KATTILKKADAVU P.O, KARUNAGAPPILLY, KOLLAM.

¶10

2. RIJU IBRAHIM KUTTY, AGED 29 YEARS, S/O.IBRAHIM KUTTY, SAJINA BHAVANAM,

¶11

VALIA KULANGARA, OCHIRA, KOLLAM.

¶12

3. SATHAR, AGED 38 YEARS, S/O.ABDUL LATHEEF, ASANTAYYATHU HOUSE, VALIYAKULANGARA,

¶13

OCHIRA P.O. KOLLAM.

¶14

4. SHAMNAD,AGED 30 YEARS, S/O.SHAMSUDHEEN, SHAMNAD MANZIL, MEMANA, OCHIRA P.O, KOLLAM.

¶15

5. JUNAID,AGED 32 YEARS, S/O.SALAHUDEEN, JUNAID MANZIL, MEMANA, OCHIRA, KOLLAM.

¶16

6. SIDHIQUE,AGED 39 YEARS, S/O.MUHAMMED KUNJU, MANDATHU PUTHENVEEDU, PAIKKUZHY, OCHIRA P.O,

¶17

KOLLAM.

¶18

7. SALIM RAJ S., AGED 43 YEARS, S/O.SAYED MUHAMMED, CHENNAMPALLIL HOUSE, VELLOOR P.O, PAMPADY,

¶19

KOTTAYAM.

¶20

BY ADVS.SRI.S.RAJEEV SRI.K.K.DHEERENDRAKRISHNAN SRI.V.VINAY

¶21

RESPONDENT(S)/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT/STATE:

¶22

1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,

¶23

ERNAKULAM -682 031.(CRIME NO.560/2013 OF CHEVAYOOR POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT)

¶24

2/-

¶25

-2-

¶26

CRL.MC.NO.1037/2015

¶27

2. PRASANNAN, AGED 47 YEARS, S/O.SUBRAMANIAN, PRANAVAM, ADINAD, KATTIKKADAVU P.O., KARUNAGAPPILLY, KOLLAM DISTRICT -690 542

¶28

R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.AMJAD ALI R2 BY ADV. SRI.VINOD KUMAR.C

¶29

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19-08-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶30

sts

¶31

Crl.MC.No. 1037 of 2015 ()

¶32

APPENDIX

¶33

PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES:

¶34

ANNEX.I - CERTIFIED COPY OF FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO.560/2013 REGISTERED BY CHEVAYOOR POLICE. ANNEX.II - AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT DATED 2-2-2015

¶35

RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES:

NIL

/TRUE COPY/

P.S.TO JUDGE

sts

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V, J

¶41

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

¶42

Crl.M.C. No.1037 of 2015

¶43

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

¶44

Dated this the 19^th day of August, 2016

¶45

O R D E R

¶46

1.The petitioners are the accused in S.C. No.306 of 2014 on the file of the Special Additional Sessions Court (Marad Cases), Kozhikode. They are alleged of having committed offence punishable under sections 143, 147, 341, 323, 506(i), 511 of 364 read with 149 of the IPC.

¶47

2.The prosecution allegation is that on 10.9.2013 at 11.30 a.m., the petitioners came in an Innova car and after wrongfully restraining the 2^nd respondent herein, assaulted him and thereafter attempted to kidnap him.

¶48

3.I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as the learned Public Prosecutor. The 2^nd respondent has also entered appearance through counsel.

¶49

4.It is submitted that disputes have been amicably resolved

¶50

Crl.M.C.1037/2015 2

¶51

and the parties are living in peace and harmony. The prayer in this petition is to permit them to continue as such by quashing the proceedings. Petitioners pray that an opportunity to redeem themselves be granted and they be permitted to move on with their life as a reformed human beings.

¶52

5.An affidavit has been filed by the respondent No.2 wherein he asserts that he has settled the matter with the petitioners herein and he has no objection in terminating the proceedings on its basis. Both sides rely on the decision of the Apex Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab ( 2012 (4) KLT 108) to advance their contentions.

¶53

6.The learned Public Prosecutor, on instructions, submits that no other cases are reported against the petitioners.

¶54

7.I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made across the Bar and I have also gone through the materials on record. It appears that the offence is entirely personal in nature and do not affect public peace or tranquility. In a case such as the instant one, even if the

¶55

Crl.M.C.1037/2015 3

¶56

prosecution is allowed to continue, it would not serve any purpose as the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak. It can only result in putting the de facto complainant and the accused to unwanted oppression and prejudice. Settlement will augur well for the interest of the community and will enable the parties to live in peace and harmony. I am of the view that proceedings can justifiably be quashed invoking the powers of this Court under Section 482 of the Code .

¶57

In the result, this petition is allowed. Annexure I final report and all further proceedings against the petitioners, now pending as S.C. No.306 of 2014 on the file of the Special Additional Sessions Court (Marad Cases), Kozhikode are quashed.

¶58

Sd/RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V. JUDGE

¶59

vps

Irshad Basheer v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Irshad Basheer 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

Jayakumar K. Vs the State of Kerala

M.M.Abdul Salam Vs Sub Inspector of Police

Siemens Limited Vs State of Kerala

Sathya Stephen Vs State of Kerala

Shine Vijayan Vs the State of Kerala

Vishwanatha Rao Vs State of Kerala