Quashed

Aashique v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC24 May 2016Crl.MC/2104/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala quashed criminal proceedings and acquitted the accused after finding a genuine, voluntary amicable settlement between the parties, citing Supreme Court precedents on ending private disputes to promote peace.

What did the court decide?

All further proceedings in Crime No.390 of 2014 against petitioners stood quashed and petitioners/accused were acquitted of all charges.

Aashique 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

TUESDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF MAY 2016/3RD JYAISHTA, 1938

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 2104 of 2016 ()

¶6

CP. NO.68/2015 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, VADAKARA. CRIME NO. 390/2014 OF EDACHERRY POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE.

¶7

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS. 1 TO 6:

¶8

1. AASHIQUE K.P., S/O. DINESAN, KANIYANTE PARAMBATH HOUSE, EDACHERRY P.O., VADAKARA VIA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT-673 502.

¶9

2. NIDHIN KILIKKILAAPURATH,

¶10

W/O. CHANDRAN K.P., KILIKKILAPURATH HOUSE, EDACHERRY P.O., VADAKARA VIA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT-673 502.

¶11

3. CHANDRAN POOKKOTTUKUNI,

¶12

S/O. CHATHU, POOKKOTTUKUNI HOUSE,

¶13

EDACHERRY P.O., VADAKARA VIA,

¶14

KOZHIKODE DISTRICT-673 502.

¶15

¶16

SREELAL KUNNATH,

¶17

S/O. SADASIVAN, KUNNATH HOUSE, EDACHERRY P.O., VADAKARA VIA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT-673 502.

¶18

5. AKHIL P.P., S/O. CHANDRAN, PADINJARE POOKKODU HOUSE, EDACHERRY P.O., VADAKARA VIA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT-673 502.

¶19

6. VISHNU SEKHARAN, S/O. SHEKHARAN, MEETHALE KAIKKULAM KANDIYIL HOUSE, EDACHERRY P.O., VADAKARA VIA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT-673 502.

¶20

BY ADV. SMT.K.J.GISHA.

¶21

Crl.MC.No. 2104 of 2016

¶22

RESPONDENTS/STATE & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT (VICTIMS):

¶23

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

¶24

2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, EDACHERRY POLICE STATION, PIN-673 520.

¶25

3. ASHWIN LAL, AGED 23, D/O. SURENDRAN, MEETHALEKKANIYIL HOUSE, EDACHERRY NORTH P.O., PIN-673 520.

¶26

4. ANOOP, AGED 23, S/O. SATHEENDRAN, KULANGARATH HOUSE, EDACHERRY P.O. PIN-673 520.

¶27

R1 & R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.SAREENA GEORGE. R3 & R4 BY ADV. SMT.V.K.HEMA

¶28

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24-05-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶29

rs.

¶30

Crl.MC.No. 2104 of 2016

¶31

APPENDIX

¶32

PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:-

¶33

ANNEXURE A1 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR NO. 390/2014 OF POLICE STATION, EDACHERY, DATED 04-10-2014 AND CHARGE. ANNEXURE A2 AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. ANNEXURE A3 AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.

¶34

RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES:- NIL.

//TRUE COPY//

P.S. TO JUDGE

rs.

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V., J.

¶39

Crl.M.C. No.2104 of 2016

¶40

Dated this the 24^th day of May, 2016

¶41

O R D E R

¶42

This petition is filed under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the “Code”) seeking invocation of powers of this Court to quash pending Criminal Proceedings.

¶43

Crime No.390 of 2014 of Edachery Police Station was registered at the instance of the third respondent herein alleging offences punishable under sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 323, 324, 506(ii) and 308 r/w 149 of the IPC.

¶44

The 6th petitioner herein (4th accused) was a juvenile at the time of commission of offence and cases as against him was referred to the Juvenile Justice Board and is pending consideration.

¶45

It appears that after completion of the investigation, final report was laid and the case against the petitioners except the 6th petitioner, is now pending consideration of the Judicial

¶46

Crl.M.C.No.2104/2016 2

¶47

Magistrate of First Class, Vadakara as CP No 68 / 15. The third respondent herein is the defacto complainant and the fourth respondent is the injured in the instant crime. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that during the pendency of the aforesaid case, the parties have decided to amicably resolve the disputes and to live in harmony. The respondents 3 and 4 have entered appearance through counsel and it is submitted that the disputes have been amicably settled with the avowed objective to maintain peace and harmony between the parties.

¶48

Respondents 3 and 4 have filed separate affidavits wherein it has been emphatically stated that their grievance does not subsist any more and they do not intend to pursue the criminal proceedings as against the petitioners herein. The learned Public Prosecutor on instructions submit that the petitioners are not persons with any criminal antecedents and that the State has no serious objection in acting upon AnnexureA2 and Annexure-A3 affidavits as it would promote peace and harmony.

¶49

It is thus borne out from the submissions made at the

¶50

Crl.M.C.No.2104/2016

¶51

¶52

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.

¶53

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.

¶54

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

¶55

303), 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 .

¶56

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

¶57

Crl.M.C.No.2104/2016 4

¶58

heinous 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 personnel 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

¶59

After having anxiously considered the submissions it is felt that it would be unfair and contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceeding. 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 .

¶60

Crl.M.C.No.2104/2016

¶61

¶62

Consequently, all further proceedings in Crime No.390 of 2014 of Edacherry Police Station as against the petitioners herein shall stand quashed. The petitioners/ accused are acquitted of all charges.

¶63

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V., (JUDGE)

¶64

vps

Aashique v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aashique 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

Ummer Vs State of Kerala

M.A. Ahammed Shaffiyulla Vs State of Kerala

Saleem @ Saleem Ahamed Vs State of Kerala

Ajay Vs State of Kerala

M.P.Sathar Vs State of Kerala

Ravanth Raj Vs State of Kerala