Allowed

Iqbal v. Muneer

Kerala HC17 May 2016Crl.MC/1965/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed a criminal miscellaneous case seeking to quash prosecution proceedings under S.482 CrPC. Relying on precedents regarding settlement and ends of justice, the Court held that since the dispute was amicably settled and injuries were negligible, continuing proceedings was an exercise in futility. Consequently, the pending criminal cases against the petitioners were qua

What did the court decide?

The criminal proceedings pending against the petitioners in S.C.No.1402/2014 before the Assistant Sessions Court, Vatakara, were quashed.

Iqbal Vs Muneer — 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

TUESDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF MAY 2016/27TH VAISAKHA, 1938

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 1965 of 2016 ()

¶6

SC.NO. 1402/2014 OF ASSISTANT SESSIONS COURT, VATAKARA CRIME NO. 526/2014 OF KUTTIADI POLICE STATION , KOZHIKODE DISTRICT

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED NO.1 TO 3:

¶8

1. IQBAL, S/O.AMMAD, PUTHIYEDATH HOUSE, KUNNUMMAL, AMSOM DESOM,

¶9

VATAKARA THALUK.

¶10

2. LATHEEF, S/O.MOIDU HAJI, KUNIYIL HOUSE, KUNNUMMAL, AMSOM DESOM, VATAKARA THALUK.

¶11

3. HAMEED, S/O.MOIDU HAJI, CHEERIKANDIYIL HOUSE, KUNNUMMAL, AMSOM DESOM,

¶12

VATAKARA THALUK.

¶13

BY ADV. SRI.ZUBAIR PULIKKOOL

¶14

RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT:

¶15

1. MUNEER, S/O.KUNHABDULLA, AGED 36 YEARS, KOLLANDIYIL HOUSE, KUTTIADI, AMSOM, DESOM, P.O.KUTTIADI, VATAKARA THALUK, KOZHIKODE DIST, PIN -673 508

¶16

2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN -682 031

¶17

R1 BY ADV. SMT.A.P.RUFAIJA R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. MAYA.P.

¶18

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17-05-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

sts

¶20

Crl.MC.No. 1965 of 2016 ()

¶21

APPENDIX

¶22

PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES:

¶23

ANNEXURE I CERTIFIED COPY OF THE CHARGE SHEET IN CRIME NO.526/2014 OF KUTTIADI POLICE STATION

¶24

ANNEXURE II SWORN AFFIDAVIT OF 1ST RESPONDENT

¶25

RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES:

NIL

/TRUE COPY/

P.A.TO JUDGE

sts

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V, J.

¶31

Crl.M.C.No.1965 of 2016

¶32

Dated this the 17^th day of May, 2016

¶33

O R D E R

¶34

1.In this petition filed under S.482 of the Code of Criminal

¶35

Procedure ( hereinafter referred to as the Code ) the petitioners seek to quash the pending criminal prosecution proceedings against him in S.C.No.1402/2014 on the file of Assistant Sessions Court, Vatakara on the ground that the matter has been settled with the de facto complainant/1^st respondent herein. The offence alleged are under S.341, 323, 324, 308 r/w S.34 IPC.

¶36

2.I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, the learned Public Prosecutor as well as the learned counsel appearing for the 1^st respondent.

¶37

3.It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the 1^st respondent that the dispute between the parties has been amicably resolved. The learned counsel has submitted that

¶38

Crl.M.C.No.1965 of 2016 : 2 :

¶39

Annexure II is the affidavit filed by the 1^st respondent which states in unmistakable terms that at the instance of well wishers, the matter has been settled and that the 1^st respondent does not wish that the criminal prosecution initiated as against the petitioners should continue.

¶40

4.The learned public prosecutor, on instructions, submits that the petitioners are not persons with any criminal antecedents and the state has no serious objection in acting on the basis of the affidavit and in terms of the pronouncements of this Court as well as the Apex Court.

¶41

5.In Gian singh v. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303

¶42

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. It was observed as follows :

¶43

“61. In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceedings or continuation of

¶44

Crl.M.C.No.1965 of 2016 : 3 :

¶45

criminal proceedings would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and the wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in the affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceedings.”

¶46

6.The aforesaid dictum stands reiterated by the Apex Court

¶47

in Narinder singh v. State of Punjab. (2014) 6 SCC

¶48

466, the pertinent observations which are as under:

¶49

“29. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we sum up and lay down the following principles by which the High Court would be guided in giving adequate treatment to the settlement between the parties and exercising its power under Section 482 of the Code while accepting the settlement and quashing the proceedings or refusing to accept the settlement with direction to continue with the criminal proceedings:

¶50

29.1 Power conferred under Section 482 of the Code is to be distinguished from the power which lies in the Court to compound the offences under Section 320 of the Code.No doubt, under Section 482 of the Code, the High Court has inherent power to quash the criminal proceedings even in those cases which are not compoundable, where the parties have settled the matter between themselves. However, this power is to be exercised sparingly and with caution.

¶51

29.2. When the parties have reached the settlement and on

¶52

Crl.M.C.No.1965 of 2016 : 4 :

¶53

that basis petition for quashing the criminal proceedings is filed, the guiding factor in such cases would be to secure:

¶54

(i) ends of justice, or

¶55

(ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any court. While exercising the power the High Court is to form an opinion on either of the aforesaid two objectives.

¶56

xxxxxxx

¶57

xxxxxxx

¶58

7.It is by now settled that when the High Court is convinced that the offences are entirely personal in nature and do not affect public peace or tranquility and when it is felt that quashing of proceedings on account of compromise would bring about peace and secure the ends of justice, the inherent powers under Section 482 can very well be exercised to quash the criminal proceedings. In such cases persisting with the prosecution would be nothing but a waste of time as the prospects of conviction would be bleak.

¶59

8.In the case on hand, though offence under S.308 of the IPC is also incorporated, Annexure I FIR would reveal that

¶60

Crl.M.C.No.1965 of 2016 : 5 :

¶61

no serious injuries were sustained by the 1^st respondent.

¶62

9.Taking note of the above and in view of the settlement

¶63

arrived at, this Court is of the view that continuance of proceedings arising out of the FIR in question would be an exercise in futility. I am therefore of the view that the criminal proceedings pending as against the petitioners can be quashed by invoking the inherent powers of this Court under S.482 of the Code.

¶64

10.In the result, this Criminal Miscellaneous Case is allowed. All further proceedings against the petitioners in S.C.No.1402/2014 on the file of Assistant Sessions Court,

¶65

Vatakara shall stand quashed.

¶66

Sd/-

¶67

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V,

JUDGE.

[True copy]

P.A to Judge

Iqbal v. Muneer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Iqbal v. Muneer

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

Sajayan M. Vs the District Collector

Nizam Vs State of Kerala

Saravanan Vs State of Kerala

Anju@Bidesh Vs Sujith

P J Jose Vs State of Kerala

Ratheesh Vs State of Kerala