Allowed

Noufal v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC10 Aug 2016Crl.MC/2008/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed a petition to quash criminal proceedings against four accused persons allegedly involved in assault. Finding the dispute settled amicably and the offence personal in nature, the Court quashed the FIR and proceedings under Section 482 CrPC to enable parties to live in harmony.

What did the court decide?

Crl.M.C. No. 2008 of 2016 and the FIR in Crime No.1457 of 2015 against the petitioners are quashed.

Noufal 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

WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF AUGUST 2016/19TH SRAVANA, 1938

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 2008 of 2016

¶6

-----------------------------------CRIME NO. 1457/2015 OF KONDOTTY POLICE STATION , MALAPPURAM DISTRICT

¶7

NAME AND ADDRESS OF THE PETITIONER(S) :

¶8

1. NOUFAL, AGED 24 YEARS, S/O.MOINKUTTY, RESIDING AT MANNARIL HOUSE, KURUPU, MANNARIL P.O, KONDOTTY, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN 673 648.

¶9

2. JABIR, AGED 22 YEARS, S/O.MOINKUTTY, RESIDING AT MANNARIL HOUSE, KURUPU, MANNARIL P.O, KONDOTTY, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN 673 648.

¶10

3. JAFAR, AGED 21 YEARS, S/O.MOINKUTTY, RESIDING AT MANNARIL HOUSE, KURUPU, MANNARIL P.O, KONDOTTY, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN 673 648.

¶11

4. RAHIM, AGED 27 YEARS, S/O.KUNJALI, RESIDING AT MANNARIL HOUSE, KURUPU, MANNARIL P.O, KONDOTTY,

¶12

MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN 673 648.

¶13

BY ADVS. SRI.J.R.PREM NAVAZ

¶14

SRI.P.T.SHEEJISH

¶15

NAME AND ADDRESS OF THE RESPONDENT(S) :

¶16

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

¶17

2. MOIDEENKUTTY, AGED 30 YEARS, S/O.KOYAMUTTY, RESIDING AT KOMBANPARAMBIL HOUSE, PAZHAYANGADI, KONDOTTY, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN 673 638.

¶18

R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.PUSHPALATHA M.K R2 BY ADV. SRI.AJOY VENU

¶19

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10-08-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

Msd.

¶21

Crl.MC.No. 2008 of 2016

¶22

APPENDIX

¶23

PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES :

¶24

ANNEXURE A TRUE COPY OF THE FIRST INFORMATION REPORT IN CRIME NO.1457/2015, OF THE KONDOTTY POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶25

ANNEXURE B THE AFFIDAVIT SOLEMNLY AFFIRMED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT DATED 15.03.2016.

¶26

RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES :

NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.A.TO JUDGE

Msd.

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V., J

¶32

¶33

Crl.M.C. No. 2008 of 2016

¶34

- - - - Dated 10^th August, 2016

¶35

¶36

ORDER

¶37

1.The petitioners herein are the accused 1 to 4 in Crime No.1457 of 2015 of Kondotty Police Station. They are alleged to have committed offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 324 and 326 read with Section 34 of the IPC. The 2^nd respondent is the victim.

¶38

2.The prosecution allegation is that on 2.12.2015 at 11.30 pm, the petitioners in furtherance of common intention wrongfully restrained the 2^nd respondent and assaulted him with dangerous weapons causing grievous injuries.

¶39

3.I have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, the respondent No.2 and also the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶40

4.It is submitted that disputes have been amicably resolved and the parties are living in peace and harmony. The prayer in this petition is to permit them to continue as

¶41

Crl.M.C. No. 2008 of 2016 -2-

¶42

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 reformed human beings.

¶43

5.An affidavit has been filed by the respondent No.2 asserting 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.

¶44

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

¶45

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 prosecution is permitted to drag on, it would not serve any purpose as the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak. It can only result in putting the de facto

¶46

Crl.M.C. No. 2008 of 2016 -3-

¶47

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.

¶48

In the result, this petition is allowed. Annexure-A FIR and all further proceedings pursuant thereto against the petitioners, who are the accused 1 to 4 in Crime No.1457 of 2015 of Kondotty Police Station are quashed.

¶49

Sd/- RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V., JUDGE

¶50

kp/-10.8.16

Noufal v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Noufal 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

Ubaid Rahman Vs State of Kerala

Vani @ Kalaivani Vs State of Kerala

Manoj Lazar Vs State of Kerala

Femina Vs the Sub Divisional Magistrate

Tony Vs State of Kerala

Tenson Vs S.I. of Police