Allowed

Ibrahim C.H v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC31 May 2016Crl.MC/2473/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Held that the prosecution witnesses and the petitioners had amicably settled their dispute, which was voluntary and genuine. The court allowed the petition under Section 482 CrPC and quashed the pending criminal proceedings as continuing the case would amount to an abuse of the process of law.

What did the court decide?

The criminal proceedings in C.C No.48 of 2015 on the files of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-I, Kasaragod were quashed.

Ibrahim C.H 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 31ST DAY OF MAY 2016/10TH JYAISHTA, 1938

¶5

Crl.MC.No.2473 of 2016 ()

¶6

IN CC NO.48/2015 ON THE FILES OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-I, KASARAGOD IN CRIME NO. 606/2014 OF VIDYANAGAR POLICE STATION , KASARGOD

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED NOS.1 TO 4:

¶8

IBRAHIM C.H, AGED 53 YEARS, S/O.MOHAMMED, R/AT KOLACHIYADKAM HOUSE, P.O EDANEER, PADY VILLAGE, KASARAGOD DISTRICT

¶9

C.H POKKER,

¶10

AGED 54 YEARS, S/O.MOHAMMED, R/AT KOLACHIYADKAM HOUSE, P.O EDANEER, PADY VILLAGE, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.

¶11

AALIKUNHI,

¶12

AGED 62 YEARS, S/O. SEETHI, R/AT KOLACHIYADKAM HOUSE, P.O EDANEER, PADY VILLAGE, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.

¶13

FAIZAL C.H. AGED 27 YEARS, S/O.POKKER, R/AT KOLACHIYADKAM HOUSE, P.O EDANEER, PADY VILLAGE, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.

¶14

BY ADV. SRI.KODOTH SREEDHARAN

¶15

RESPONDENT(S)/STATE & COMPLAINANT:

¶16

STATE OF KERALA, THROUGH THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, VIDYANAGER, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM-682031.

¶17

ABDUL AZEEZ,

¶18

AGED 32 YEARS, S/O.MOHAMMED YUSAF HAJEE, R/AT KOLACHIYADKAM HOUSE, P.O EDANEER, PADY VILLAGE, KASARAGOD DISTRICT-671127.

¶19

..2/-

¶20

Crl.MC.No.2473 of 2016 ()

¶21

:2:

¶22

R2 BY ADV. SMT.C.B.SUMA DEVI

¶23

R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.RAJESH VIJAYAN

¶24

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31-05-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶25

Crl.MC.No.2473 of 2016 ()

¶26

APPENDIX

¶27

PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES:

¶28

AI:-TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO.606/2014 DT. 05/12/2014 ON THE FILES OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, KASARAGOD.

¶29

AII:-TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶30

RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES-NIL

KRJ

//TRUE COPY//

P.A TO JUDGE

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V, J

¶35

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

¶36

Crl.M.C No.2473 of 2016

¶37

ORDER

¶38

The petitioners herein are accused 1 to 4 in C.C No.48 of 2015 on the files of Judicial Magistrate of First Class-I, Kasaragod involving offences punishable under Sections 341 and 323 read with 34 of IPC. The said case arose on the basis of a statement furnished by the second respondent herein. The petitioners have come up with this petition invoking powers of this Court under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure seeking to quash pending criminal proceedings on the ground that the matter has been amicably resolved between the parties.

¶39

Prosecution allegation is that on 12.112014 at 5 PM, petitioners had assaulted CW1 at Kolachiyadukkam in Pady village on account of previous enmity. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the instant case is a counter case to C.C No. 29 of 2015 on the files of the Judicial Magistrate of First

¶40

CRL.MC.2473/16

¶41

-:2:-

¶42

Class-I, Kasaragod. The parties are neighbours and it was over a

¶43

property dispute that the case had originated. At the instance of mediators and well wishers, the matter has been amicably resolved.

¶44

The second respondent had entered appearance through a counsel and it is submitted that he does not intend to prosecute the petitioners any further in view of the settlement arrived at between the parties. Reliance is also placed on Annexure-II affidavit sworn to by the second respondent wherein it has been unequivocally stated that the matter has been amicably resolved.

¶45

Learned Public Prosecutor, on instructions, submitted that the first petitioner was involved in a crime and he was acquitted after trial. Later, he was involved in Crime No.607 of 2014 which is registered as a counter to the instant case. In view of the fact that the matter has been amicably resolved between the parties, it is stated that the State has no serious objection in acting on Annexure-II affidavit.

¶46

It is thus borne out from the submissions made at the Bar

¶47

CRL.MC.2473/16

¶48

-:3:-

¶49

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.

¶50

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 .

¶51

In Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012 (10) SCC 303),

¶52

Apex Court has laid down that in appropriate cases, the High Court can take note of the amicable resolution of disputes between

¶53

the victim and the wrongdoer to put an end to the criminal proceedings. This view was reiterated in Narinder Singh v. State

¶54

of Punjab (2014 (6) SCC 466) and Yogendra Yadav and Others

¶55

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

¶57

ends of justice or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court.

¶58

CRL.MC.2473/16

¶59

-:4:-

¶60

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 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.

¶61

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

¶62

-:5:-

¶63

CRL.MC.2473/16

¶64

augur well for the interest of the community and will enable the

¶65

parties to live in peace and harmony.

¶66

In view of the above facts and circumstances, it is felt that the continuance of criminal proceedings as against the petitioners in view of the settlement arrived at is nothing, but an abuse of process of law.

¶67

In the result the petition is allowed. All further proceedings as against the petitioners herein in C.C No.48 of 2015 on the files of Judicial Magistrate of First Class-I, Kasaragod shall stand

¶68

quashed.

¶69

Sd/- RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V JUDGE

¶70

krj.31/5/16

Ibrahim C.H v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ibrahim C.H 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

Rajesh Vs State of Kerala

John Vs State of Kerala

Shahul Hameed Vs the State of Kerala

Abdul Azeez Vs State of Kerala

Ibrahim C.H Vs State of Kerala

A.Hashim Vs Sub Inspector of Police