Allowed

Abulatheef Backer v. Mohammed Basheer

Kerala HC2 Jun 2016Crl.MC/2070/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Two criminal petitions seeking to quash proceedings for assault and molestation registered under the Indian Penal Code. The High Court allowed the petitions noting that the disputes had been amicably settled by the parties and injured witnesses, holding that continuation of proceedings would constitute abuse of the process of court.

What did the court decide?

All further proceedings in Crime Nos. 13 and 14 of 2016 of the Koduvally Police Station shall stand quashed.

Abulatheef Backer Vs Mohammed Basheer — 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

THURSDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF JUNE 2016/12TH JYAISHTA, 1938

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 2070 of 2016

¶6

CRIME NO. 13/2016 OF KODUVALLY POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED:

¶8

1. ABU LATHEEF BACKER, AGED 21 YEARS,

¶9

KELOT HOUSE, NELLANKANDY (PO),

¶10

VAVAD (PO), KODUVALLY, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.

¶11

2. BASHEER P.V,

¶12

AGED:28 YEARS, S/O KADHIRI, PILAVULLAYIL HOUSE,

¶13

AVILORA (PO), KODUVALLY, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.

¶14

3. MUHAMMED JABIR.K,

¶15

AGED:20 YEARS, S/O BEERAN,

¶16

RESIDING AT KUDIALTTUMMEL HOUSE, AVILORA (PO),

¶17

KODUVALLY (VIA), THAMARASSERY TALUK,

¶18

KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.

¶19

4. RASHEED. K,

¶20

AGED:35 YEARS, S/O.PACKER, KUDILATTUMMEL HOUSE, AVILORA (PO), KODUVALLY (VIA), KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.

¶21

5. ABDUL JABBAR A.P,

¶22

AGED:30 YEARS, S/O PACKER, ALAPPURAYIL HOUSE, AVILORA (PO), KODUVALLY (VIA), KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.

¶23

AGED:49 YEARS, S/O.ALIKUTTY HAJEE, KAVUNGAMKUZHIL, VAVAD (PO), KODUVALLY, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.

¶24

7. SHUKOOR.K,

¶25

AGED:38 YEARS, S/O.PACKER, KUDILATTUMMEL HOUSE, AVILORA (PO), KODUVALLY (VIA), KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.

¶26

8. MUHAMMED BADSHA C.K.,

¶27

AGED:20 YEARS, S/O KALIL, CHAYAKKOTH HOUSE, AVILORA (PO) KODUVALLY (VIA), KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.

¶28

BY ADV. SRI.G.ANEESH

.......2/-

..2..

Crl.MC.No. 2070 of 2016

¶33

RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT & STATE:

¶34

1. MOHAMMED BASHEER, AGED:50 YEARS, S/O.LATE CHEKKU HAJI, VARIKKOTTU CHALIL HOUSE, PUTHOOR VILLAGE, THAMARASSERY TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT-673571.

¶35

2. MUHAMMED JAMSHID.K, AGED:18 YEARS, S/O.MUHAMMED, KUDILATTUMMEL HOUSE, AVILORA (PO), KODUVALLY, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT-673572.

¶36

3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682 031.

¶37

R1 & 2 BY ADV. SRI.P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN R3 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.SAREENA GEORGE.

¶38

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02-06-2016, ALONG WITH CRL.MC.NO.2075/2016 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶39

¶40

Crl.MC.No. 2070 of 2016

¶41

APPENDIX

¶42

PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES

¶43

ANNEXURE A: TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO. 13/2016 OF KODUVALLY POLICE STATION.

¶44

ANNEXURE B: TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT DT. 30/3/2016

¶45

ANNEXURE C: TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DT 30/3/2016

¶46

RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES

NIL.

/ TRUE COPY /

P.S. TO JUDGE

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V., J.

¶52

====================

¶53

Crl.M.C. Nos. 2070 & 2075 of 2016 =================== Dated this the 02^nd day of June, 2016

¶54

O R D E R

¶55

Petitioners in Crl. M. C. No. 2070 of 2016 are accused Nos. 1 to 8 in Crime No. 13 of 2016 of the Koduvally Police Station, Kozhikode. The said crime was registered at the instance of the 1^st respondent herein for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 323, 324, 326 and 308 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶56

Petitioners in Crl. M.C. No. 2075 of 2016 are accused Nos. 1 to 6 in Crime No. 14 of 2016 of the Koduvally Police Station. The said crime was registered at the instance of the 1^st respondent herein.

¶57

Crime No. 14 of 2016 is the counter case to Crime No. 13 of 2016 of the Koduvally Police Station. Petitioners in the respective cases have come up with these petitions

¶58

seeking to quash all further proceedings in the above two cases on the ground that the disputes between the respective

¶59

Crl. M.C. Nos.2070 & 2075 of 2016

¶60

-: 2 :-

¶61

petitioners and the respondents have been settled by means of a compromise. In both the cases, injured witnesses have also been arrayed as respondents.

¶62

The prosecution allegation in Crime No. 13 of the Koduvally Police Station is that on 04.01.2016 at 9.00 a.m., the de facto complainant and his sister's son were wrongfully restrained by the accused and assaulted with the weapons causing a nasal bone injury. It is in respect of the incident that occurred on the same day at the same time that Crime No. 14 of 2016 was registered wherein the allegation is that accused in the said case has wrongfully restrained the de facto complainant and others and attacked them using an iron pipe.

¶63

It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that the parties are relatives and the entire disputes between them have been settled. It is further submitted that the respondents in the respective cases have shown the virtue and gentility to forgive the petitioners for their wrong doing. The petitioners, it is submitted, has

¶64

Crl. M.C. Nos.2070 & 2075 of 2016

¶65

-: 3 :-

¶66

undertaken that they would refrain from committing acts of violence. Finally it is submitted that in essence, the offences involved are of a personal nature and are not offences against the society and that continuation of criminal proceedings will only be an exercise in futility.

¶67

In Crl. M.C. No.2070 of 2016, respondents 1 to 6 have sworn to separate affidavits which are produced as Annexues B to G wherein it is emphatically asserted that both the case and counter case have been settled and that respondents did not intend that the criminal proceedings against the petitioners should continue any further. In the same manner in Crl. M.C. No.2070 of 2016 respondents 1 and 2 have sworn to Annexures B and C affidavits wherein it has been asserted that they do not intend to continue with the criminal prosecution as the matter has been settled.

¶68

The learned Public Prosecutor, on instructions,

¶69

submits that the the State has no serious objection in acting upon the affidavits filed by the de facto complainant and the injured witnesses as it is borne out that the matter has been

¶70

Crl. M.C. Nos.2070 & 2075 of 2016

¶71

-: 4 :-

¶72

resolved by way of settlement. It is also submitted that the petitioners are not persons with any criminal antecedents.

¶73

It is thus borne out from the submissions made at

¶74

the bar that the parties have amicably settled their disputes with their free will and without any kind of pressure, influence or coercion. The compromise, it is felt, is voluntarily and genuine and can be acted upon. The law with regard to the settlement of criminal disputes on the strength of an amicable resolution of the disputes between the parties is no more res integra .

¶75

9. In Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC

¶76

303), the 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. This view was reiterated in Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab. (2014) 6 SCC 466) and Yogendra Yadav and Others v. State of Jharkhand and Another 2014 (9) SCC 653 .

¶77

It was held that the inherent power is of wide

¶78

Crl. M.C. Nos.2070 & 2075 of 2016

¶79

-: 5 :-

¶80

plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz; (i) to secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court. It was held that certain categories of cases involving heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim's family and the offender have settled the dispute as those offences are not private in nature and have serious impact on society. But those cases where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and those in which the parties have resolved their entire dispute could fittingly be quashed by this court taking into account the compromise between the offender and victim. In such cases the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal case would put accused and the de facto complainant to great oppression and prejudice.

¶81

After having anxiously considered the submissions, it is felt that it would be unfair and contrary to

¶82

Crl. M.C. Nos.2070 & 2075 of 2016

¶83

-: 6 :-

¶84

the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceedings. It would only tantamount to abuse of process of law to subject the parties to the ordeal of a protracted criminal proceeding despite the settlement and compromise between the victim and wrongdoer. Settlement will augur well for the interest of the community and will enable the parties to live in peace and harmony.

¶85

Having regard to the facts and circumstances and taking note of the pronouncements of the Apex Court, I am of the view that the petitions can be allowed.

¶86

In the result, the petitions are allowed. All further proceedings in Crime Nos. 13 and 14 of 2016 of the Koduvally Police Station, Kozhikode shall stand quashed.

¶87

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V., JUDGE.

¶88

vsv

Abulatheef Backer v. Mohammed Basheer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abulatheef Backer v. Mohammed Basheer

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

Manesh @ Manu Vs State of Kerala

Abdul Gafar Vs State of Kerala

Prasanth Babu @ Prasanth Vs Kaladharan

Muhammed Jamshik D. Vs Muhammed Jabir K.

Muhammed Hasheer a @ Muhammed Asheer Vs State of Kerala

Hisham Vs the State of Kerala