Allowed

Abdul Nasar v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC5 Dec 2016Crl.MC/2041/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court, invoking inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC, allowed the Writ Petition to quash criminal proceedings initiated against petitioners for affray and assault. Based on the settlement between parties and the absence of grave mental depravity, the court held that quashing was necessary to secure ends of justice and prevent waste of time.

What did the court decide?

The final report and all pending proceedings pursuant thereto under C.C. No. 296 of 2011 against the petitioners are quashed.

Abdul Nasar 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

MONDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2016/14TH AGRAHAYANA, 1938

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 2041 of 2016 ()

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC 296/2011 of J.M.F.C.,PARAPPANANGADI DATED CRIME NO. 185/2010 OF THENHIPALAM POLICE STATION , MALAPPURAM

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED:

¶8

ABDUL NASAR AGED 40 YRS, S/O.MOIDEEN KUTTY, MEPPINALIL HOUSE, CHENAKKALANGADI,TIRIRANGADI TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT 673 636 2. SULAIMAN AGED 48 YEARS,S/O.MOIDEEN KUTTY, PARAMTHODI HOUSE, CHENAKKALANGADI, THENIPALAM AMSOM AND DESOM TIRURANGADI TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT 673 636 3. MUSTHAFA AGED 42 YEARS,S/O.MAMMED, KALLAYIL MOTTAYILTHODI HOUSE, AROOR, CHENAKKALANGADI, TIRURANGADI TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT 673 636 4. T.K MUHAMMED, AGED 54 YEARS, S/O.MOIDEEN KUTTY, CEHNAPPARAMBU HOUSE, CHENAKKALANGADI, TIRURANGADI TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT 673 636 5. ABDUL KALAM KALLIYIL, AGED 39 YEARS S/O.MAMMAD, MUTTAYILTHODI HOUSE, CHENAKKALANGADI, TIRURANGADI TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT 673 636 BY ADV. SRI.S.KANNAN RESPONDENT(S)/STATE AND VICTIMS: --------------------------------

¶9

THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM 682 031

¶10

THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE THENHIPPALAM POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT 673 001

¶11

SHAREEF AHAMMED M S/O. AHAMMEDKUTTY, AGED 42 YEARS, THENIPALAM AMSOM AND DESOM, TIRURANGADI TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT 673 636

¶12

FAISAL P.K S/O. MUHAMMED, AGED 44 YEARS, KURUKKAN KANDATHIL HOUSE, CHENAKKALANGADI TIRURANGADI TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT 673 636 R3-4 BY ADV. SRI.K.M.FIROZ R3-R4 BY ADV. SMT.M.SHAJNA R BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, SRI. AMJAD ALI

¶13

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05-12-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

CONTD...

¶15

:2:

¶16

Crl.MC.No. 2041 of 2016 ()

¶17

APPENDIX

¶18

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶19

A1 A TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT NO 408 OF 2010 SUBMITTED BY THE THENHIPPALAM POLICE IN CRIME NO 186 OF 2010

¶20

A2 AFFIDAVIT SWORN IN BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT

¶21

A3 AFFIDAVIT SWORN IN BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : NIL -----------------------

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE

SKS

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V., J

¶26

- - - - Crl. M.C. No. 2041 of 2016

¶27

- - - - Dated 5^th December, 2016

¶28

¶29

O R D E R

¶30

1.This petition is filed under S.482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ( hereinafter referred to as the Code ) with a prayer to invoke the extraordinary inherent powers and to quash the pending criminal proceedings.

¶31

2.The petitioners herein are the accused Nos. 1 to 5 in C.C.

¶32

No. 296 of 2011 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Parappanangadi. In the aforesaid case, they stand indicted under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 323, 324, 326 r/w Section 149 of the IPC.

¶33

3.The crux of the prosecution allegation is that on 02.06.2010 at about 7.30 am, the petitioners herein formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and in prosecution of their common object, wrongfully restrained the respondents 3 and 4 and thereafter assaulted them causing injuries.

¶34

Crl.M.C. No. 2041 of 2016

¶35

¶36

4.Heard the submissions advanced.

¶37

5.The learned counsel appearing for the party respondents submits that the dispute between the parties has been amicably resolved. Attention of this Court is invited to the affidavits filed by them to buttress his submission . It is urged that the dispute is purely personal in nature and would not affect public peace or tranquility . Summing up it is prayed that the criminal proceedings be terminated to promote peace and harmony.

¶38

6.The learned Public Prosecutor after getting instructions has expressed his reservations in the matter of quashing the proceedings on the basis of settlement. It is submitted that the invocation of powers under Section 482 of the Code in a case of this nature is not warranted. However, it is submitted that no other cases are reported against the petitioners.

¶39

7.I have considered the submissions .

¶40

Crl.M.C. No. 2041 of 2016

¶41

¶42

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

¶43

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 :

¶44

“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 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.”

¶45

9.The aforesaid dictum stands reiterated by the Apex Court

¶46

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

¶47

466, the pertinent observations which are as under:

¶48

XXXXXXXXXXXX

¶49

29.2. When the parties have reached

¶50

Crl.M.C. No. 2041 of 2016

¶51

¶52

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

¶53

(i) ends of justice, or

¶54

(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.

¶55

xxxxxxx

¶56

xxxxxxx

¶57

10.The offence committed by the petitioners cannot be said

¶58

to be grave and serious having ingredients of extreme mental depravity. It also does not appear that the offence in this case will have a serious impact on the society .It is felt that quashing of proceedings on account of compromise would bring about peace and secure the ends of justice. Even otherwise , persisting with the prosecution would be nothing but a waste of time as the prospects of conviction would be bleak.

¶59

11.Having considered all the relevant circumstances, I am of

¶60

the considered view that this Court will be well justified in

¶61

Crl.M.C. No. 2041 of 2016

¶62

¶63

invoking its extra ordinary powers under Section 482 of

¶64

the Code to quash the proceedings.

¶65

In the result, this petition will stand allowed. Annexure-A1 final report and all proceedings pursuant thereto against the petitioners now pending as C.C. No. 296 of 2011 on the files of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Parappanangadi are quashed.

¶66

Sd/-

¶67

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V., JUDGE

¶68

SKS

¶69

//TRUE COPY//

¶70

P.A. TO JUDGE

Abdul Nasar v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abdul Nasar 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

Tomy Mathew Vs State of Kerala

Nizar Ahammed Vs State of Kerala

Muhammed Rafeeque @ Rafeeque Vs the Station House Officer

Saifudeen Vs the Competent Authority, Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators

V Sunilkumar Vs Mara Pandiyan I a S

Abdul Basith Vs State of Kerala