Allowed

Hisham v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC2 Jun 2016Crl.MC/2468/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court allowed a petition under Section 482 CrPC to quash criminal proceedings against the petitioner. The court held that the dispute was amicably settled between parties by their free will regarding offences committed while they were students, warranting the quashing to promote peace and harmony.

What did the court decide?

This petition is allowed and all further proceedings against the petitioner herein in S.C.No.274 of 2015 shall stand quashed.

Hisham 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

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

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 2468 of 2016

¶6

SC.274/2015 OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT (FAST TRACK COURT-I), MANJERI CRIME NO. 593/2011 OF TIRUR POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED:

¶8

HISHAM, S/O.HAMZA, AGED 23 YEARS, THAZHETHETHIL HOUSE, KALLINGAL, TIRUR PO, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.R.RANJITH (MANJERI)

¶10

RESPONDENT(S)/STATE, DEFACTO COMPLAINANT & INJURED:

¶11

1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682031, FOR THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, TIRUR POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶12

2. MUHAMMED RASHID,

¶13

S/O.MAMMEDKUTTY, VALIYAPEEDIYEKKAL, PULLUR AMSOM, THEKKEN KUTTUR DESOM, TIRUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-676 101.

¶14

3. SUBEERSHAD,

¶15

S/O.KABEER, PAMBALATH, EZHOOR MATHILINGAL AMSOM, TIRUR DESOM, TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-676 101.

¶16

4. MUHAMMED MUSTAFA,

¶17

S/O.ABDUL MAJEED, MOORKANTHODI HOUSE, MAVUMKUNNU AMSOM, TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-676 101.

¶18

R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.SAREENA GEORGE R2-4 BY ADV. SMT.M.LISHA

¶19

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

¶20

¶21

Crl.MC.No. 2468 of 2016

¶22

APPENDIX

¶23

PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES

¶24

ANNEXURES A: CERTIFIED COPY OF FIR IN CRIME NO.593/2011 OF TIRUR POLICE STATION, DATED 16-8-2011.

¶25

ANNEXURES B: CERTIFIED COPY OF THE CHARGE IN CRIME NO.593/2011 OF TIRUR POLICE STATION.

¶26

ANNEXURES C: TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN TO BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 3-3-2016.

¶27

ANNEXURES D: TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN TO BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 16-4-2016.

¶28

ANNEXURES E: TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN TO BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 3-3-2016

¶29

RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES

NIL.

/ TRUE COPY /

P.S. TO JUDGE

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V., J

¶35

¶36

Crl.M.C. No. 2468 of 2016

¶37

- - - - Dated 2^nd June, 2016

¶38

¶39

ORDER

¶40

The petitioner herein is the 1^st accused in S.C.No.274 of 2015 on the files of the Additional Sessions Judge-I (Fast Track Court-I, Manjeri involving offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 341 and 323 read with Section 149 of the IPC. The 2^nd respondent herein is the de facto complainant and respondents 3 and 4 are the injured witnesses.

¶41

The petitioner has come up with this petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the “Code”) seeking to quash pending criminal proceedings on the ground that the matter has been amicably resolved between the parties by means of compromise.

¶42

The prosecution allegation is that on 16.08.2011 at about 1.30 pm, the petitioner and 4 others in furtherance of

¶43

Crl.M.C. No.2468 of 2016 -2-

¶44

their common object restrained the de facto complainant and assaulted him and two others with bare hands.

¶45

I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the learned counsel for the respondents 2 to 4 and also the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶46

It is submitted that accused Nos.2 to 5 in Crime No.593 of 2011 of the Tirur Police Station are juveniles and the proceedings against them are yet to commence before the Juvenile Justice Court. It is further submitted that the incident had occurred while de facto complainant, the injured and the accused were students of Higher Secondary School, Ezhoor. According to the learned counsel, the disputes have been amicably resolved and parties have decided to live in peace and harmony.

¶47

Respondents 2 to 4 have entered appearance through counsel and referring to Annexures C, D and E affidavits sworn to by the said respondents it is submitted that the entire disputes have been settled and that they have no subsisting grievance as against the petitioner herein.

¶48

Crl.M.C. No.2468 of 2016 -3-

¶49

The learned Public Prosecutor was directed to obtain

¶50

instructions and it is submitted that the State has no serious objection in acting on Annexures C, D and E affidavits as it would promote peace and harmony. It is also submitted that the petitioner is not person with any criminal antecedents.

¶51

It is thus borne out from the submissions made at 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.

¶52

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

¶53

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

¶54

Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab. (2014) 6 SCC 466)

¶55

Crl.M.C. No.2468 of 2016

¶56

-4-

¶57

and Yogendra Yadav and Others V State of Jharkhand and Another 2014 (9) SCC 653 .

¶58

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 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

Crl.M.C. No.2468 of 2016 -5-

¶60

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.

¶61

In the result, this petition is allowed and all further proceedings against the petitioner herein in S.C.No.274 of 2015 on the files of the Additional Sessions Judge-I (Fast Track Court-I, Manjeri shall stand quashed.

¶62

Sd/- RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V., JUDGE

¶63

kp/-6.6.16

Hisham v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hisham 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

Manesh @ Manu Vs State of Kerala

Abdul Gafar Vs State of Kerala

Prasanth Babu @ Prasanth Vs Kaladharan

Abulatheef Backer Vs Mohammed Basheer

Muhammed Jamshik D. Vs Muhammed Jabir K.

Muhammed Hasheer a @ Muhammed Asheer Vs State of Kerala