Allowed

K.P. Abdul Jabbar v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC20 Jul 2016Crl.MC/2038/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal miscellaneous petition, the Kerala High Court quashed criminal proceedings instituted by the State of Kerala against eight accused persons. The court relied on a settled legal principle under Section 482 CrPC, noting that the offence was personal, parties had reached a settlement, and termination served community peace.

What did the court decide?

All further proceedings against the petitioners in C.C.No.295 of 2011 are quashed.

K.P. Abdul Jabbar 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 20TH DAY OF JULY 2016/29TH ASHADHA, 1938

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 2038 of 2016 ()

¶6

CC.NO. 295/2011 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, PARAPPANANGADI CRIME NO. 185/2010 OF THENHIPALAM POLICE STATION , MALAPPURAM DISTRICT

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED:

¶8

1. K.P. ABDUL JABBAR, AGED 63 YEARS, S/O.AHAMMED, DARUL NAJATH, CHENAKKALANGADI, TIRURANGADI TALUK, MALAPPURAM-673 636.

¶9

2. FAISAL P.K.,

¶10

AGED 44 YEARS, S/O.MUHAMMED, KURUKKAN KANDATHIL HOUSE, CHENAKKALANGADI, TIRURANGADI TALUK, MALAPPURAM-673 636.

¶11

3. ABDUL RAHEEM,

¶12

AGED 51 YEARS, S/O.MUHAMMED, KANNANARI HOUSE, CHENAKKALANGADI, TIRURANGADI TALUK, MALAPPURAM-673 636.

¶13

4. T.P.ANVAR SADATH, AGED 45 YEARS, S/O.IMBICHI KOYA, MADATHINATIL HOUSE,CHENAKKALANGADI, TIRURANGADI TALUK, MALAPPURAM-673 636.

¶14

5. SHANIS T.P.,

¶15

AGED 26 YEARS, S/O.KUTTYAMU, MAKUAM KUNNISERI HOUSE, CHENAKKALANGADI, TIRURANGADI TALUK, MALAPPURAM-673 636.

¶16

6. NOUSHAD,

¶17

AGED 40 YEARS, S/O.KOYAKUTTY, AARUKANDATHIL HOUSE, CHENAKKALANGADI, TIRURANGADI TALUK, MALAPPURAM-673 636.

¶18

7. ANAS,

¶19

AGED 35 YEARS, S/O.AHMEDKUTTY, NAMBRAKOTT HOUSE, CHENAKKALANGADI, TIRURANGADI TALUK, MALAPPURAM-673 636.

¶20

2/-

¶21

-2-

¶22

CRL.M.C.NO.2038/2016

¶23

8. SAITHU MATHILANJERI, AGED 48 YEARS, S/O.ALI KUTTY, THRIKKANUR HOUSE, CHENAKKALANGADI, TIRURANGADI TALUK, MALAPPURAM-673 636.

¶24

BY ADVS.SRI.K.M.FIROZ SMT.M.SHAJNA SMT.UMMUL FIDA

¶25

RESPONDENT(S)/STATE AND VICTIMS:

¶26

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

¶27

2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, THENIPPALAM POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM.

¶28

3. MUSTHAFA,

¶29

S/O.MOHAMMED @ MAMMED, AGED 42 YEARS, KALLAYIL MOTTAYILTHODI HOUSE, CHENAKKALANGADI, TIRURANGADI TALUK, MALAPPURAM-673 636.

¶30

4. JAFFAR C.K.,

¶31

S/O.ALAVI, AGED 32 YEARS, LAKSHAMVEEDU COLONY, ALUNGAL, THENIPALAM AMSOM AND DESOM, TIRURANGADI TALUK, MALAPPURAM-673 636.

¶32

5. SULAIMAN,

¶33

S/O.MOIDEEN KUTTY, AGED 48 YEARS, PARAMTHODI HOUSE, CHENAKKALANGADI, THENIPALAM AMSOM AND DESOM, TIRURANGADI TALUK, MALAPPURAM-673 636.

¶34

R1 & R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. SAREENA GEORGE R3 BY ADV. SRI.S.KANNAN

¶35

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20-07-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶36

sts

¶37

Crl.MC.No. 2038 of 2016 ()

¶38

APPENDIX

¶39

PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES:

¶40

ANNEXURE A1 : CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT NO.407 OF 2010 SUBMITTED BY THENHIPPALAM POLICE IN CRIME NO.185 OF 2010.

¶41

ANNEXURE A2 : AFFIDAVIT SWORN IN BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶42

ANNEXURE A3 : AFFIDAVIT SWORN IN BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT. ANNEXURE A4 : AFFIDAVIT SWORN IN BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT.

¶43

RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES:

NIL

/TRUE COPY/

P.A.TO JUDGE

sts

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V., J

¶49

¶50

Crl.M.C. No. 2038 of 2016

¶51

- - - - Dated 20^th July, 2016

¶52

¶53

ORDER

¶54

1.On 2.6.2010 at 7.30 a.m., the petitioners herein are alleged to have assaulted respondents 3 to 5 and caused them injuries.

¶55

2.Crime No.185 of 2010 of Thenippalam Police Station was promptly registered against the petitioners alleging offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 323, 324 and 326 read with Section 149 of the IPC. Later, final report was laid and the case is now pending as CC No 295 of 2011 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the I Class - Parappanangadi.

¶56

3.The respondents 3 to 5 are the victims and they have entered appearance through their counsel.

¶57

4.I have heard the submissions advanced at the Bar.

¶58

5.It is submitted that the parties have reached an out of court settlement and there is no acrimony between them

¶59

Crl.M.C. No.2038 of 2016

¶60

-2-

¶61

at present. All the disputes have been amicably resolved and they desire to live in peace and harmony. The respondents 3 to 5 have sworn to separate affidavits wherein they assert that they have no objection in terminating the proceedings.

¶62

6.Relying on the judgment rendered by the Three – Judge Bench of the Apex Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab ( 2012 (4) KLT 108) it is prayed that powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure be invoked to quash the criminal proceedings.

¶63

7.The learned Public Prosecutor, on instructions, submits that the petitioners are not persons with criminal antecedents.

¶64

8.I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made across the bar and I have also gone through the materials on record.

¶65

9.It appears to me that the offence is entirely personal in nature and do not affect public peace or tranquility. It is

¶66

Crl.M.C. No.2038 of 2016 -3-

¶67

also felt that quashing of proceedings on account of compromise would bring about peace. In a case such as the instant one, even if the 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.

¶68

In the result, this petition is allowed. All further proceedings against the petitioners, who are the accused 1 to 8 in C.C.No.295 of 2011 on the files of the Judicial Magistrate of 1^st Class-I, Parappanangadi are quashed.

¶69

Sd/-

¶70

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V., JUDGE

¶71

kp/-20.7.16

K.P. Abdul Jabbar v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.P. Abdul Jabbar 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

Kochucherukkan Vs State of Kerala

Santhoshkumar Vs State of Kerala

Ummer Farooque Vs State of Kerala

Vineeth Vs State of Kerala

Sathya Stephen Vs the State of Kerala

Sajid K.R. Vs State of Kerala