Allowed

Saleem @ Saleem Ahamed v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC23 May 2016Crl.MC/2207/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court quashed the criminal proceedings and impugned FIR under Section 420 IPC following an amicable settlement between the parties. Relying on Gian Singh and Narinder Singh, the Court held that continuing the prosecution would abuse the process of law despite the voluntary compromise.

What did the court decide?

The impugned FIR (Annexure A) and all subsequent proceedings in C.C. No. 106 of 2013 at Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Palakkad, were quashed.

Saleem @ Saleem Ahamed Vs State of Kerala — Cheque Dishonour | 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 23RD DAY OF MAY 2016/2ND JYAISHTA, 1938

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 2207 of 2016 ()

¶6

CC 106/2013 OF CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, PALAKKAD. CRIME NO. 523/2012 OF TOWN SOUTH POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

¶7

PETITIONER/ACCUSED :

¶8

SALEEM @ SALEEM AHAMED,

¶9

S/O. SANKARANPILLAI, AGED 42 YEARS, 5/150, MMDA COLONY, MUADURA POLI P.O., CHENNAI-95, TAMILNADU.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.K.ANAND

¶11

RESPONDENT(S)/STATE & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:

¶12

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

¶13

2.JEBASTIAN, AGED 49 YEARS, S/O.JYANADRAVYAM,PUTHUR STREET, AVARAIKULAM P.O., RADHAPURAM, THIRUNELVELI, TAMILNADU-627 111.

¶14

R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.RAJESH VIJAYAN R2 BY ADV. SRI.N.RAJESH (PALAKKAD)

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23-05-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

mbr/

¶17

Crl.MC.No. 2207 of 2016 ()

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES:

¶20

ANNEXURE A : CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR IN TOWN SOUTH POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD REGISTERED CRIME NO.523/2012, DTD.13.3.2012. ANNEXURE B : CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN TOWN SOUTH, POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD REGISTERED CRIME NO.523/2012, DTD.23.2.2013. ANNEXURE C : AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DTD.9.10.2015. RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES: NIL ------------------------

¶21

//TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE mbr/

¶22

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V., J

¶23

¶24

Crl.M.C. No. 2207 of 2016

¶25

- - - - Dated 23^rd May, 2016

¶26

¶27

ORDER

¶28

This application 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 against the petitioner.

¶29

The petitioner herein is the sole accused in Crime No.523 of 2012 of Town South Police Station, Palakkad, registered at the instance of second respondent herein aginst the petitioner alleging offence punishable under section 420 of the IPC.

¶30

After completion of the investigation, the police submitted the final police report before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Palakkad and the case is now pending as C.C.No.106 of 2013. During the pendency of the criminal case, parties have decided to resolve the disputes and to live in harmony. Having compromised the matter, the

¶31

Crl.M.C. No. 2207 of 2016 -2-

¶32

petitioner/accused has preferred the present petition, to quash the impugned FIR and all other subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, invoking the provisions of Section 482 of the Code

¶33

The second respondent/defacto complainant has 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. It is further submitted that as per Annexure C affidavit sworn to by the second respondent it has been stated that he does not wish to continue with the prosecution proceedings as against the petitioner any further.

¶34

The learned Public Prosecutor was directed to obtain instructions from the Investigating officer and it is submitted that the State has no objection in acting on Annexure C as it would promote peace and harmony. It is also submitted that the petitioner is not a person with any criminal antecedents.

¶35

Crl.M.C. No. 2207 of 2016

¶36

-3-

¶37

It is thus borne out from the submissions made at

¶38

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.

¶39

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

¶40

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

¶41

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 .

¶42

It was held that the inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be

¶43

Crl.M.C. No. 2207 of 2016 -4-

¶44

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 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.

¶45

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

¶46

Crl.M.C. No. 2207 of 2016 -5-

¶47

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.

¶48

Consequently, the impugned FIR which is Annexure A and all other subsequent proceedings in C.C.No.106 of 2013 of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court , Palakkad shall stand quashed.

¶49

Sd/- RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V., JUDGE

¶50

kp/-23.5.16

Saleem @ Saleem Ahamed v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saleem @ Saleem Ahamed 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

Kunjayyappan Vs State of Kerala

Manoj Vs the State of Kerala

Mohammed Shuhaib Vs State of Kerala

Ummer Vs State of Kerala

M.A. Ahammed Shaffiyulla Vs State of Kerala

Rakesh Devassy Vs State of Kerala