Allowed

Shakir v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC24 Oct 2016Crl.MC/2067/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court quashed criminal proceedings under Section 482 CrPC against petitioners charged with offences under the IPC for assault and unlawful assembly. Relying on Gian Singh, the Court held that since the victim settled the grievance and the offences were not grave, continuing the trial would be a futile exercise.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of FIR in Crime No.310 of 2015 and all subsequent proceedings against the petitioners.

Shakir 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 24TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2016/2ND KARTHIKA, 1938

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 2067 of 2016 ()

¶6

AGAINST CRIME NOL310/2015 OF MUKKOM POLICE STATION

¶7

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED:

¶8

1.	SHAKIR AGED 26 YEA	RS, S/O.KUNJIMUHAMED,
	KUNNATHMALA	YIL HOUSE, NEELESWARAM,
	P.O.MUKKOM,	KOZHIKODE - 673 582.
2.	MUHAMED NAV AGED 20 YEA KARIVILLIPA	AS K.P. RS, S/O.MUJIBRAHMAN, RA HOUSE, NEELESWARAM,
	P.O.MUKKOM,	KOZHIKODE - 673 582.
3.	MUHAMED JAM AGED 23 YEA THAZHEKUNNA P.O.MUKKOM,	SIR, RS, S/O.IBRHIM, TH HOUSE, NEELESWARAM, KOZHIKODE - 673 582.
4.	MUHAMED AJN AGED 22 YEA KUTIYERIKUN P.O.MUKKOM,	AS K.K. RS, S/O.ABUBACKER, NUMAL HOUSE, NEELESWARAM, KOZHIKODE - 673 582.
5.	MUHAMED ASI AGED 20 YEA ASARIMAKAL P.O.MUKKOM,	K RS, S/O.ASAYIN, HOUSE, NEELESWARAM, KOZHIKODE - 673 582.
6.	NAVAS AGED 22 YEA CHETIANCHAL P.O.MUKKOM,	RS, S/O.UMMER, IL HOUSE, NEELESWARAM, KOZHIKODE - 673 582.
7.	SUBISH AGED 26 YEA PERINGATT H P.O.MUKKOM,	RS, S/O.SUBRAMANIAN, OUSE, NEELESWARAM, KOZHIKODE - 673 582.
8.	MUHAMED RAB AGED 20 YEA PUTHIYEDATH	EEH, RS, S/O.RASHEED, HOUSE, MANASSERY,
	P.O.MUKKOM,	KOZHIKODE - 673 582.
	BY ADVS.SRI SMT.	.A.RANJITH NARAYANAN A.SIMI

¶9

RESPONDENTS/STATE, DEFACTO COMPLAINANT/INJURED:

¶10

1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE LEARNED PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031, REPRESENTING THE SHO, MUKKOM POLICE, KOZHIKODE - 673 602.

¶11

2. NISAMUDIN AGED 22 YEARS, S/O.MUHAMMED, PALAPARAMBATH HOUSE, NEELESWARAM AMSOM AND DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK AND DISTRICT-673 582.

¶12

R2 BY ADV. SRI.ANEESH JOSEPH BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. AMJAD ALI

¶13

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24-10-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

Crl.MC.No. 2067 of 2016 () ---------------------------

¶15

APPENDIX

¶16

PETITIONERS)' ANNEXURES -----------------------

¶17

A1 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR DATED 28.06.2015 IN CRIME NO.310/2015 OF MUKKOM POLICE STATION. A2 DULY ATTESTED AFFIDAVIT DATED 01.02.2016 SWORN BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶18

RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES: NIL

TRUE COPY

P.A.TO JUDGE.

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V., J

¶23

¶24

Crl.M.C. No. 2067 of 2016

¶25

- - - - Dated 24^th October, 2016

¶26

¶27

ORDER

¶28

1.This petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'Code') has been preferred by the petitioners herein for quashing the proceedings pending against them as Crime No.310 of 2015 of Mukkom Police Station. The said crime has been registered at the instance of the 2^nd respondent herein alleging offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 323 and 324 read with Section 149 of the IPC.

¶29

2.The prosecution allegation is that on 27.6.2015 at 11 am, the petitioners herein wrongfully restrained the 2^nd respondent who was travelling in a motor cycle and assaulted him with a reaper causing injuries.

¶30

3.The 2^nd respondent has entered appearance through his counsel and has filed Annexure-A2 affidavit wherein he has stated that he has no subsisting grievance against the

¶31

Crl.M.C. No.2067 of 2016 -2-

¶32

petitioners. He asserts in the affidavit that he does not wish that the criminal proceedings against the petitioners should continue.

¶33

4.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that in view of the settlement arrived at between the parties, this Court will be justified in quashing the proceedings.

¶34

5.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.

¶35

6.In Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Another [2012 (10)SCC 303], the Apex Court has crystalised the position in respect of the powers vested in the High Court under S.482 of the Code, to quash criminal proceedings. It was

¶36

Crl.M.C. No.2067 of 2016

¶37

-3-

¶38

held that the power vested in the High Court under Section 482 of the Code, is not limited to quashing proceedings within the ambit and scope of Section 320 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The three - Judge Bench in the above case, clearly expounded, that quashing of criminal proceedings under S.482 of the Code, could also be based on settlements between private parties, and could also on a compromise between the offender and the victim. Only that, the above power did not extend to crimes against the society. It is also relevant to mention, that the jurisdiction vested in the High Court under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, for quashing criminal proceedings, was held to be exercisable in criminal cases having an overwhelming and predominatingly civil flavour, particularly offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership, or such like transactions. In all such cases, the parties should have resolved their entire dispute by themselves,

¶39

Crl.M.C. No.2067 of 2016 -4-

¶40

mutually. Further, guidelines were issued by the Apex Court in Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab [2014 (6) SCC 466] and recently in Rajesh Kamath J. and

¶41

Others v. Mohana Kurup and Others [AIR 2016 SC 2452].

¶42

7.I have considered the rival submissions and I have gone through the materials on record. The offence committed by the petitioners cannot be said 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. More over, when the respondent No.2 has settled the matter, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and the continuation of the criminal case against the petitioners would be a futile exercise. It would also put the petitioners and the 2^nd respondent to great oppression and prejudice.

¶43