Quashed

Ummer v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC23 May 2016Crl.MC/1755/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court quashed criminal proceedings under Sections 420, 422, and 406 IPC arising from a 2002 FIR. Relying on Section 482 CrPC and precedents regarding amicable settlements, the Court held that continuing the prosecution would amount to an abuse of process as the parties had voluntarily compromised the dispute.

What did the court decide?

The impugned FIR (Annexure I) and all further proceedings in C.C.No.713 of 2015 arising therefrom shall stand quashed.

Ummer Vs State of Kerala — Kerala HC (2016) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶4

MONDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF MAY 2016/2ND JYAISHTA, 1938

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 1755 of 2016

¶6

C.C.NO.713/2015 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-I, PERINTHALMANNA CRIME NO. 546/2002 OF PERINTHALMANNA POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED :

¶8

UMMER,

¶9

S/O.SAIDALI, AGED 58 YEARS, KOLLARAN HOUSE, VALAMBUR AMSOM DESOM, PERINTHALMANNA TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.U.K.DEVIDAS

¶11

RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT/STATE :

¶12

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE S.I. OF POLICE, PERINTHALMANNA POLICE STATION THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶13

2. DIVAKARAN, S/O.LEKSHMIKUTTY AMMA, AGED 67 YEARS, KARIMATHIL HOUSE, KADANNAMANNA P.O., PERINTHALMANNA TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶14

R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.RAJESH VIJAYAN R2 BY ADV. SMT.P.M.SHAHIDA

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23-05-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

Msd.

¶17

Crl.MC.No. 1755 of 2016

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES :

¶20

ANNEXURE I: CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO.546/2002 OF PERINTHALMANNA POLICE STATION.

¶21

ANNEXURE II: ORIGINAL OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 29.02.2016 ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY, PERINTHALMANNA CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURE RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK LTD.

¶22

ANNEXURE III: ORIGINAL OF THE AFFIDAVIT DATED 15.03.2016 SWORN BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶23

RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES :

NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.A.TO JUDGE

Msd.

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V., J

¶29

¶30

Crl.M.C. No. 1755 of 2016

¶31

- - - - Dated 23^rd May, 2016

¶32

¶33

ORDER

¶34

This application is filed under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the “Code”) seeking invocation of powers of this Court to quash pending Criminal Proceedings .

¶35

The petitioner herein is the sole accused in Crime No.546 of 2002 of Perinthalmanna Police Station, registered at the instance of second respondent herein aginst the petitioner alleging offences punishable under sections 420, 422 and 406 of the IPC.

¶36

After completion of the investigation, the police submitted the final police report before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Perinthalmanna and the case is now pending as C.C.No.713 of 2015. During the pendency of the criminal case, parties have decided to resolve the disputes and to live in harmony. Having compromised the matter, the petitioner/accused has preferred the present

¶37

Crl.M.C. No. 1755 of 2016 -2-

¶38

petition, to quash the impugned FIR and all other subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, invoking the provisions of Section 482 of the Code.

¶39

It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the disputes have been amicably settled with the avowed objective to maintain peace and harmony between the parties. It is further submitted that as per Annexure III affidavit sworn to by the second respondent it has been stated that he does not wish to continue the prosecution proceedings as against the petitioner any further. The learned counsel for the second respondent submitted that it is as per Annexure II that the Perinthalmanna Co-operative Agriculture Rural Development Bank Ltd. has granted sanction to withdraw the prosecution proceedings against the petitioner and that the Bank does not intend to proceed against the petitioner and that it has no objection in quashing the criminal proceedings.

¶40

The learned Public Prosecutor was directed to obtain instructions from the Investigating officer and it is submitted that the State has no objection in acting on Annexure III as

¶41

Crl.M.C. No. 1755 of 2016 -3-

¶42

it would promote peace and harmony. It is also submitted that the petitioner is not a person with any criminal antecedents.

¶43

It is thus borne out from the submissions made at the bar that the parties have amicably settled their disputes with their free will and without any kind of pressure, influence or coercion. The compromise, it is felt, is voluntarily and genuine and can be acted upon. The law with regard to the settlement of criminal disputes on the strength of an amicable resolution of the disputes between the parties is no more res integra.

¶44

In Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC

¶45

303), Apex Court has laid down that in appropriate cases, the High Court can take note of the amicable resolution of disputes between the victim and the wrongdoer to put an end to the criminal proceedings. This view was reiterated in

¶46

Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab. (2014) 6 SCC 466) and Yogendra Yadav and Others V State of Jharkhand and Another 2014 (9) SCC 653 .

¶47

Crl.M.C. No. 1755 of 2016 -4-

¶48

It was held that the inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz; (i) to secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court. It was held that certain categories of cases involving heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim's family and the offender have settled the dispute as those offences are not private in nature and have serious impact on society. But those cases where the wrong is basically private or personnel in nature and those in which the parties have resolved their entire dispute could fittingly be quashed by this Court taking into account the compromise between the offender and victim. In such cases the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal case would put accused and the de facto complainant to great oppression and prejudice.

¶49

After having anxiously considered the submissions it is felt that it would be unfair and contrary to the interest of

¶50

Crl.M.C. No. 1755 of 2016 -5-

¶51

justice to continue with the criminal proceeding. It would only tantamount to abuse of process of law to subject the parties to the ordeal of a protracted criminal proceeding despite the settlement and compromise between the victim and wrongdoer. Settlement will augur well for the interest of the community and will enable the parties to live in peace and harmony.

¶52

Consequently, the impugned proceedings which is Annexure I and all further proceedings in C.C.No.713 of 2015 on the files of the Judicial Magistrate of the I Class - I , Perinthalmanna, arisen from Crime No.546 of 2002 of Perinthalmanna Police Station shall stand quashed.

¶53

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V., JUDGE

¶54

kp/-23.5.16

Ummer v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ummer 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

Kunjayyappan Vs State of Kerala

Manoj Vs the State of Kerala

Mohammed Shuhaib Vs State of Kerala

M.A. Ahammed Shaffiyulla Vs State of Kerala

Saleem @ Saleem Ahamed Vs State of Kerala

Rakesh Devassy Vs State of Kerala