Allowed

Muhammed Ashraf B.I v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC10 Jun 2016Crl.MC/2309/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed criminal proceedings against the petitioner in C.C.No.168 of 2016. The substratum of the prosecution was considered destroyed after the first accused was acquitted and an amicable settlement between the parties, negating the need for continued prosecution despite the offence being non-compoundable.

What did the court decide?

Criminal proceedings against the petitioner in C.C.No.168 of 2016 shall stand quashed.

Muhammed Ashraf B.I Vs the 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

FRIDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF JUNE 2016/20TH JYAISHTA, 1938

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 2309 of 2016 ()

¶6

CC.NO. 168/2016 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTARTE COURT-1, KASARAGOD CRIME NO. 758/2011 OF KASARAGOD POLICE STATION , KASARGOD DISTRICT

¶7

PETITIONER/2ND ACCUSED:

¶8

MUHAMMED ASHRAF B.I., AGED 32 YEARS, S/O B.M.IBRAHIM, RESIDING AT BADIRA HOUSE, KASABA VILLAGE, KASARAGOD TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.T.MADHU

¶10

RESPONDENT(S)/STATE:

¶11

1. THE STATE OF KERALA THROUGH THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, KASARAGOD POLICE STATION, KASARAGOD DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031.

¶12

2. MUHAMMAD ASHRAF, AGED 41 YEARS, S/O ABDULLA HAJI B.M., RESIDING AT BADIRAKUNNIL HOUSE, KASABA VILLAGE, KASARAGOD TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT-671 316.

¶13

R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.RAJESH VIJAYAN R2 BY ADV. SMT.G.SANGEETHA

¶14

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10-06-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

sts

¶16

Crl.MC.No. 2309 of 2016 ()

¶17

APPENDIX

¶18

PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES:

¶19

ANNEX A1:	THE TRUE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.758/2011 OF KASARAGOD POLICE STATION.
ANNEX A2:	THE TRUE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO.758/2011 OF KASARAGOD POLICE STATION.
ANNEX A3:	THE AFFIDAVIT DATED 31.3.2016 SWORN IN BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
ANNEX A4:	THE TRUE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE MEMO OF EVIDENCE IN CRIME NO.758/2011 OF KASARAGOD POLICE STATION.

¶20

RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES:

NIL

/TRUE COPY/

P.A.TO JUDGE

sts

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V., J

¶26

- - - - Crl.M.C. No. 2309 of 2016

¶27

- - - - Dated 10^th June, 2016

¶28

¶29

ORDER

¶30

The petitioner herein is the sole accused in C.C.No.168 of 2016 on the files of the Judicial Magistrate of 1^st Class-I, Kasaragod. The said case has arisen from Crime No.758 of 2011 of Kasaragod Police Station registered at the instance of 2^nd respondent herein against one Mohammed Shanid and the petitioner alleging offences punishable under Sections 324 and 506(i) read with Section 34 of the IPC.

¶31

After investigation, final report was laid before the jurisdictional Magistrate and the case was taken cognizance of by the learned Magistrate as C.C.No.457 of 2012. The petitioner did not appear before court and face the trial. The case against the 1^st accused was proceeded with.

¶32

As per judgment dated 5.2.2016 in C.C.No.457 of

¶33

2012, the 1^st accused was acquitted by the learned Magistrate under Section 248(1) of the Cr.P.C (hereinafter

¶34

Crl.M.C. No.2309 of 2016 -2-

¶35

referred to as the “Code”). After acquittal of the 1^st accused, the petitioner as well as the 2^nd respondent have amicably settled the disputes and the 2^nd respondent has filed Annexure A3 affidavit before this Court reporting the fact of settlement.

¶36

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the disputes have been amicably settled and that the parties do not intend or wish that the criminal proceedings should continue any further. The learned counsel also referred to the judgment of the learned Magistrate in C.C.No.457 of 2012, where the learned Magistrate has observed in paragraph 7 that the only eye witness to the incident has deposed before court that he had no occasion to witness the incident.

¶37

The learned Public Prosecutor on instructions submitted that the petitioner is not a person with criminal antecedents.

¶38

I have heard the rival submissions and have

¶39

Crl.M.C. No.2309 of 2016 -3-

¶40

anxiously gone through the judgment rendered by the learned Magistrate. After evaluating the evidence in detail, the learned Magistrate came to the conclusion that the prosecution had miserably failed to prove its case against the accused person and on its basis the accused was acquitted under Section 248(1) of the Code. In Moosa v. Sub Inspector of Police (2006 (1) KLT 552) and also Ashraf Kancheriyil v. State of Kerala (2011 (2) KHC

¶41

812) it has been held that when substratum of the case is destroyed, there is no point in pursuing with the prosecution as against the other accused. In the instant case the 2^nd respondent has filed separate affidavit asserting that he has entered into an amicable settlement with the petitioner and he did not wish to proceed with the criminal prosecution.

¶42

After hearing the counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the 2^nd respondent and also the learned Public prosecutor, I am of the considered opinion that this is one of those exceptional cases where prayer for invocation

¶43

Crl.M.C. No.2309 of 2016 -4-

¶44

of the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction can be justifiably invoked to serve the ends of justice. The bona fides of the petitioner in approaching this court with the prayer cannot be doubted as the substratum of the case has been destroyed. It has been held by the Apex Court that, the High Court, while exercising powers under Section 482 of the Code will be justified in quashing cases involving even non-compoundable offence, if the disputes are really private in nature and no public interests are involved, provided that the offences are not of the gravely objectionable variety. I am convinced that the extraordinary powers under Section 482 of the Code can be invoked as the case falls within the matrix of guidelines laid down by the Apex Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab ( 2012 (4) KLT 108) and Narinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and anr. reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466) and other cases.

¶45

Having regard to the facts and circumstances, I am of the view that the petition can be allowed. In the result, this

¶46

Crl.M.C. No.2309 of 2016

¶47

-5-

¶48

petition is allowed. All further proceedings against the petitioner in C.C.No.168 of 2016 on the files of the Judicial Magistrate of 1^st Class-I, Kasaragod shall stand quashed.

¶49

Sd/- RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V., JUDGE

¶50

kp/-14.616

Muhammed Ashraf B.I v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Muhammed Ashraf B.I v. the 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

Ajmal Vs State of Kerala

Amal Rajesh Vs State of Kerala

Shamsuddin Vs Shoukkath

Manish K.A. Vs State of Kerala

Shajahan Vs State of Kerala

Sudhakaran Vs State of Kerala