Allowed

Sirajudheen K. v. Muhammed Riyas

Kerala HC19 Jan 2016Crl.MC/112/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the criminal miscellaneous petition and quashed the First Information Report in Crime No. 766/2015. The reason was that the matter had been amicably settled between the petitioners (accused) and the defacto complainant (1st Respondent), rendering further proceedings unnecessary.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of further proceedings in Annexure-A1 First Information Report in Crime No. 766/2015 of Chandera Police Station.

Sirajudheen K. Vs Muhammed Riyas — 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

TUESDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF JANUARY 2016/29TH POUSHA, 1937

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 112 of 2016 ()

¶6

CRIME NO. 766/2015 OF CHANDERA POLICE STATION, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.

¶7

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 TO 5:

¶8

1. SIRAJUDHEEN K., AGED 22 YEARS, S/O.KUNHU @ SHUKKOOR, RESIDING AT KUNNATH HOUSE, POOVALAPPU, SOUTH TRIKARIPUR VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.

¶9

2. FAYIS K.P., AGED 22 YEARS, S/O. ABDUL REHMAN, RESIDING AT KANDIL PEEDIKAYIL HOUSE, VALVAKADU, SOUTH TRIKARIPUR VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.

¶10

3. ADHIL P.P., AGED 21 YEARS, S/O. ABDUL SATHAR, RESIDING AT P.P. HOUSE, CHOVVERI, SOUTH TRIKARIPUR VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.

¶11

4. MUNEER K.A., AGED 35 YEARS, S/O.ABDUL KHADER, RESIDING AT AISHA MANZIL, VALVAKKAD, SOUTH TRIKARIPUR VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.

¶12

5. RAMEES. M., AGED 22 YEARS, S/O. MUHAMMED ALI K.P., RESIDING AT V.K.P. ROAD, VALVAKKAD, SOUTH TRIKARIPUR VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.

¶13

BY ADVS.SRI.T.MADHU, SMT.C.R.SARADAMANI.

¶14

RESPONDENTS/STATE

¶15

1. MUHAMMED RIYAS, AGED 20 YEARS, S/O. ABDULLA, RESIDING AT RAYISA MANZIL, ELAMBACHI, PORAPPAD, SOUTH TRIKARIPUR VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT-671 311.

¶16

Crl.MC.No. 112 of 2016

¶17

2. SAHAL V.K., AGED 21 YEARS, S/O.M. SUBAITHA, RESIDING AT HOUSE NO 9/368A, PORAPPAD, SOUTH TRIKARIPUR VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT- 671 311.

¶18

3. SHOUKATH M.K., AGED 21 YEARS, S/O. NAFEESATH M.K., RESIDING AT M.K. HOUSE, PORAPPAD, SOUTH TRIKARIPUR VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT- 671 311.

¶19

4. THE STATE OF KERALA, THROUGH THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, CHANDERA POLICE STATION, KASARAGOD DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031.

¶20

R1 TO R3 BY ADV. SRI.ROY THOMAS (PATHANAMTHITTA). R4 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.SAREENA GEORGE.

¶21

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19-01-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

rs.

¶23

Crl.MC.No. 112 of 2016

¶24

APPENDIX

¶25

PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:-

¶26

ANNEXURE A1:-	THE TRUE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.768/2015 OF CHANDERA POLICE STATION.
ANNEXURE A2:-	THE AFFIDAVIT DTD. 01/01/2016 SWORN IN BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
ANNEXURE A3:-	THE AFFIDAVIT DTD. 01/01/2016 SWORN IN BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
ANNEXURE A4:-	THE AFFIDAVIT DTD. 01/01/2016 SWORN IN BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶27

RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES:- NIL.

//TRUE COPY//

P.S. TO JUDGE

rs.

B. KEMAL PASHA, J.

¶32

¶33

Crl.M.C. No.112 of 2016

¶34

Dated this the 19^th day of January, 2016

¶35

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

¶36

Petitioners are accused Nos.1 to 5 in Crime

¶37

No.766/2015 of Chandera Police Station, Kasaragod district, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 323 and 324 read with Section 149 IPC.

¶38

It seems that the matter has been amicably settled between the petitioners and the defacto complainant, who is the 1^st respondent herein. Respondents 2 and 3 are the injured witnesses in the case.

¶39

Respondents 1 to 3 have filed Annexures-A2, A3 and A4 affidavits affirming that the matter has been amicably settled between them and the petitioners and presently, they have no complaints against the petitioners. When the matter has been amicably settled between the parties, no purpose would be served in proceeding with the matter any

¶40

Crl.M.C.112/2016

¶41

: 2 :

¶42

further. Matters being so, all further proceedings in Annexure-A1 First Information Report in Crime No.766/2015 of Chandera Police Station can be quashed.

¶43

In the result, this Crl.M.C. is allowed and all further proceedings as against the petitioners in Annexure-A1 First Information Report in Crime No.766/2015 of Chandera Police Station are quashed.

¶44

Sd/- (B.KEMAL PASHA, JUDGE)

¶45

aks/19/01

¶46

// True Copy //

¶47

PA to Judge

Sirajudheen K. v. Muhammed Riyas

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sirajudheen K. v. Muhammed Riyas

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Abdulla.M Vs Sub Inspector of Police

Nalli Viswanath Vs State of Kerala

Shiju Mathew Vs State of Kerala

Shekkeermuhammed Ashraf Vs State of Kerala

Nizamudeen Vs State of Kerala

Shafeer Vs State of Kerala