Allowed

Sakeer Hussain v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC28 Jun 2016Crl.MC/2522/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Crl.MC.No. 2522 of 2016, the Kerala High Court allowed a petition under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of criminal proceedings initiated for assault. The court held that since the offense was personal, a settlement had been reached, and the possibility of conviction was remote, the proceedings were quashed to promote peace and harmony.

What did the court decide?

All further proceedings against the petitioners in C.C.No.638 of 2012 on the files of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class Court-I, Perinthalmanna, shall stand quashed.

Sakeer Hussain Vs State of Kerala — Service and Employment | 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 28TH DAY OF JUNE 2016/7TH ASHADHA, 1938

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 2522 of 2016

¶6

CC 638/2012 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-I, PERINTHALMANNA

¶7

CRIME NO. 187/2012 OF PERINTHALMANNA POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM

¶8

PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED NO.1 TO 3:

¶9

1. SAKEER HUSSAIN, S/O.ABDU RAHMAN, AGED 28 YEARS, PATTANI VEETTIL, PERINTHALMANNA AMSOM DESOM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶10

2. FASALUDEEN, S/O.ABDUL RAZAQ, AGED 26 YEARS, VATTAPPARA HOUSE, ANGADIPURAM AMSOM DESOM, PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶11

3. MUHAMMED NISAR, S/O.ISAHAQ, AGED 28 YEARS, OTHUKUMPURATH HOUSE, PERINTHALMANNA AMSOM DESOM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶12

BY ADV. SRI.U.K.DEVIDAS

¶13

RESPONDENT(S)/STATE/COMPLAINANT:

¶14

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PERINTHALMANNA POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶15

2. MUHAMMED SHAROOK, S/O.MUHAMMADALI, AGED 24 YEARS, KIZHISSERY HOUSE, MANATHUMANGALAM, PERINTHALMANNA TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-679 322.

¶16

R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.SAREENA GEORGE R2 BY ADV. SMT.P.M.SHAHIDA

¶17

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28-06-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

msv/

¶19

Crl.MC.No. 2522 of 2016

¶20

APPENDIX

¶21

PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES

¶22

ANNEXURE I : CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIRST INFORMATION REPORT IN CRIME NO.187/2012 OF PERINTHALMANNA POLICE STATION DATED 14-2-2012. ANNEXURE II : CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CC NO.638/2012 ON THE FILES OF THE JFCM COURT-I, MALAPPURAM. ANNEXURE III : THE ORIGINAL OF THE AFFIDAVIT DATED 31-8-2015 EXECUTED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT. ANNEXURE IV : CERTIFIED COPY OF THE LIST OF WITNESSES. RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES: ------------------------

NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.S.TO JUDGE

Msv/

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V, J

¶28

----------------------------------------

¶29

Crl.M.C. No.2522 of 2016

¶30

-----------------------------------------

¶31

Dated this the 28^th day of June, 2016

¶32

O R D E R

¶33

1.The petitioners herein are accused Nos.1 to 3 in C.C.No.638 of 2012 on the files of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class Court-I, Perinthalmanna. The aforesaid case has arisen from Crime No.187 of 2012 of Perinthalmanna Police Station registered at the instance of the second respondent herein for offence punishable under sections 323, 326 read with 34 of the IPC.

¶34

2.They have preferred this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure banking on the ratio of the Judgment rendered by the Three – Judge Bench of the Apex Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab ( 2012

¶35

(4) KLT 108) and a series of other cases which include Narinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and

¶36

anr. (2014) 6 SCC 466) and Yogendra Yadav and

¶37

Crl.M.C.2522/2016

¶38

¶39

others V State of Jharkhand (2014 (9) SCC 653 )

¶40

with a prayer to quash the above proceeding. The sole ground is that the Apex Court in the above judgments have delineated the circumstances and the cases in which

¶41

inherent powers under Section 482 can be invoked de hors section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for recognizing out of court settlement for the purpose of quashing criminal proceedings.

¶42

3.The prosecution allegation as per the final report is that on 13.2.2012 at 8.30 PM, the petitioners assaulted the de facto complainant with iron rod and wooden stick.

¶43

4.I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor. The second respondent has entered appearance through counsel.

¶44

5.It is submitted that the parties have reached an out of court settlement and there is no acrimony between them at present. They have agreed to start afresh and to live in peace and harmony. The pendency of the criminal

¶45

Crl.M.C.2522/2016 3

¶46

proceeding will hinder their cordial relationship in no small measure. To bring on record the settlement, the 2^nd respondent has also filed an affidavit wherein he states in unequivocal terms that he has pardoned the petitioners and reiterates that he has no objection in terminating the proceedings.

¶47

6.The learned Public Prosecutor, on instructions, submits that the petitioners are not persons with criminal antecedents.

¶48

7.I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made across the bar and I have also gone through the materials on record.

¶49

8.It appears that the offence is entirely personal in nature and do not affect public peace or tranquility. It is also felt that quashing of proceedings on account of compromise would bring about peace. In a case such as the instant one, even if the prosecution is allowed to continue, it would not serve any purpose as the possibility of

¶50

Crl.M.C.2522/2016 4

¶51

conviction is remote and bleak. It can only result in putting the de facto complainant and the accused to unwanted oppression and prejudice. Settlement will augur well for the interest of the community and will enable the parties to live in peace and harmony.

¶52

9.I am of the view that this Court is well justified in quashing the impugned proceedings as the instant case falls within the matrix of guidelines issued by the Apex Court in Gian Singh ( Supra ) and the other cases referred to above.

¶53

In the result, this petition is allowed. All further proceedings against the petitioners in C.C.No.638 of 2012 on the files of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class Court-I, Perinthalmanna,shall stand quashed.

¶54

Sd/RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V. JUDGE

¶55

vps

Sakeer Hussain v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sakeer Hussain 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

Haneefa Vs State of Kerala

Sajesh N.V Vs State of Kerala

Shanmon Vs State of Kerala

Mumtas Vs State of Kerala

Thomas Vs State of Kerala

Baby Vs State of Kerala