Allowed

Muhammed Jamshik D. v. Muhammed Jabir K.

Kerala HC2 Jun 2016Crl.MC/2072/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court allowed cross petitions to quash criminal proceedings filed under Sections 341, 308 and 148 IPC involving rival groups. Quashing was justified due to voluntary amicable settlement and resolution of disputes between parties.

What did the court decide?

All further proceedings in Crime No. 653 of 2015 and Crime No. 654 of 2015 against the petitioners were quashed.

Muhammed Jamshik D. Vs Muhammed Jabir K. — 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. 2072 of 2016

¶6

CRIME NO. 653/2015 OF KODUVALLY POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED:

¶8

1. MUHAMMED JAMSHID K., AGED 19 YEARS, S/O MUHAMMED, KUDILATTUMMEL HOUSE, AVILORA (PO), KDUVALLY, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.

¶9

2. MUHAMMED ERFAN C.P. @ AHMED ERFAN C.P., AGED 19 YEARS, S/O ALI, CHORAPPANIYIL HOUSE, AVILORA (PO), KODUVALLY (VIA), KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.

¶10

3. AKBAR C.K., AGED 35 YEARS, S/O. THERUVAI KUTTY HAJI, CHAYAKKOTH HOUSE, AVILORA, KODUVALLY KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.

¶11

4. USMAN V.P., AGED 24 YEARS, VATTAPOYIL HOUSE, NALLAMKANDY, VAVAD (PO), KODUVALLY, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.

¶12

BY ADV. SRI.P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN

¶13

RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT & STATE:

¶14

1. MUHAMMED JABIR K., AGED 20 YEARS, S/O. BEERAN, RESIDING AT KUDILATTUMMEL HOUSE, AVILORA(PO), KODUVALLY (VIA), THAMARASSERY TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT- 673 572.

¶15

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

¶16

R1 BY ADV. SRI.G.ANEESH R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.SAREENA GEORGE

¶17

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02-06-2016, ALONG WITH CRMC. 2078/2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

msv/

¶19

Crl.MC.No. 2072 of 2016

¶20

APPENDIX

¶21

PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES:

¶22

ANNEX A: TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO. 653/2015 OF KODUVALLY POLICE.

¶23

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

¶24

ANNEX C: TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO.653/2015 OF KODUVALLY POLICE STATION WHICH IS NOW PENDING AS C.P.NO.21/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COUR-I, THAMARASSERY.

¶25

RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES:

¶26

------------------------

NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.S.TO JUDGE

Msv/

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V., J.

¶32

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

¶33

Crl.M.C. Nos. 2072 & 2078 of 2016

¶34

=================== Dated this the 02^nd day of June, 2016

¶35

O R D E R

¶36

Petitioners in Crl. M.C.No. 2072 of 2016 are

¶37

accused Nos. 1 to 4 in Crime No. 653 of 2015 of Koduvally Police Station (now pending as C.P. No.21 of 2016 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Thamarassery). The aforesaid crime was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 341 and 308 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code at the instance of the 1^st respondent herein.

¶38

Petitioners in Crl. M.C. No. 2078 of 2016 are

¶39

accused Nos. 1 to 6 in Crime No. 654 of 2015 of the Koduvally Police Station which was registered for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 324 and 308 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶40

Crl. M.C. .Nos.2072 & 2078 of 2016

¶41

-: 2 :-

¶42

Crime No. 654 of 2015 of Koduvally Police

¶43

Station is the counter case to Crime No. 653 of 2015 of

¶44

the Koduvally Police Station (now pending as C.P. No. 21 of 2016 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Thamarassery). Both the crimes have been registered in respect of an incident which took place on the same day at the same time between rival groups. Petitioners have come up with these petitions seeking to quash all further proceedings against them in the respective crimes on the ground that disputes between them have been amicably resolved.

¶45

The prosecution allegation in Crime No. 654 of 2015 of the Koduvally Police Station is that on 23.12.2015 at 10.00 p.m., the petitioners along with 3 others had wrongfully restrained the de fact o complainant and assaulted him with reaper. It is also alleged that some injuries were sustained by the 2^nd

¶46

Crl. M.C. .Nos.2072 & 2078 of 2016

¶47

-: 3 :-

¶48

respondent as well. Accused 3 to 5 in the said Crime are juveniles and it is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that their case is being referred to the Juvenile Justice Board. In so far as Crime No. 653 of 2015 (now pending as C.P. No.21 of 2016 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Thamarassery) is concerned, allegation is that on 23.12.2015 at 10.15 p.m., the petitioners, who are accused 1 and 2, had restrained the de facto complainant and assaulted him with a stone.

¶49

I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, the learned counsel appearing for the party respondents and the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶50

It is submitted by the learned counsel that the parties are relatives and at the instance of their wellwishers and elders, the matter has been amicably

¶51

Crl. M.C. .Nos.2072 & 2078 of 2016

¶52

-: 4 :-

¶53

resolved and they are living together harmoniously. The said submission is endorsed by the learned counsel for the party respondents. Reference is also made to Annexure B affidavit sworn to by the de facto complainant in Crl. M.C. No. 2072 of 2016 and Annexures B and C affidavits sworn to by the de facto complainant and injured in Crl. M.C. No. 2078 of 2016 to contend that the matter has been amicably resolved and the de facto complainant in the respective cases do not intend that the criminal proceedings against the petitioners in the respective cases should continue any further.

¶54

The learned Public Prosecutor on instructions

¶55

opposed the prayer but however it is submitted that the petitioners herein are not involved in any other crime. It is also submitted that the State has no serious objection in acting upon the affidavits filed by the de

¶56

Crl. M.C. .Nos.2072 & 2078 of 2016

¶57

-: 5 :-

¶58

facto complainant and the injured witnesses in view of the fact that it would bring peace and harmony. It is

¶59

also submitted that in Crl. M.C. No.2078 of 2015, the investigating officer has reported that there are three other accused in addition to the petitioners and since they are juveniles, proceedings against them is being referred to the Juvenile Justice Board.

¶60

It is thus borne out from the submissions

¶61

made at the bar that the parties have amicably settled their disputes on 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 .

¶62

In Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012 (10) SCC 303), the Apex Court has laid down that in appropriate cases, the High Court can take note of the

¶63

Crl. M.C. .Nos.2072 & 2078 of 2016

¶64

-: 6 :-

¶65

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).

¶66

It was held that the inherent power is of wide 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

¶67

Crl. M.C. .Nos.2072 & 2078 of 2016

¶68

-: 7 :-

¶69

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.

¶70

After having anxiously considered the

¶71

submissions, it is felt that it would be unfair and contrary to 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

¶72

Crl. M.C. .Nos.2072 & 2078 of 2016

¶73

-: 8 :-

¶74

community and will enable the parties to live in peace and harmony.

¶75

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.

¶76

In the result, the petitions are allowed. All further proceedings in Crime No.653 of 2013 of 2015 of the Koduvally Police Station (now pending as C.P. No.21 of 2016 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Thamarassery) and Crime No.654 of 2015 of the Koduvally Police Station, Kozhikode against the accused shall stand quashed.

¶77

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V., JUDGE.

¶78

vsv

Muhammed Jamshik D. v. Muhammed Jabir K.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Muhammed Jamshik D. v. Muhammed Jabir K.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Manesh @ Manu Vs State of Kerala

Abdul Gafar Vs State of Kerala

Prasanth Babu @ Prasanth Vs Kaladharan

Abulatheef Backer Vs Mohammed Basheer

Muhammed Hasheer a @ Muhammed Asheer Vs State of Kerala

Hisham Vs the State of Kerala