Allowed

P.P.Shamsu v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC7 Jun 2016Crl.MC/2535/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal miscellaneous petition under Section 482 CrPC, the Kerala High Court quashed proceedings involving charges of assault, criminal intimidation, and rioting against five accused. The Court held that the dispute was personal, bailable, and amicably settled between the parties, deeming further prosecution an abuse of process.

What did the court decide?

All further proceedings in S.C.No.282 of 2015 before the II Addl. Asst. Sessions Court, Kozhikode against petitioners Nos. 1 to 5 stood quashed.

P.P.Shamsu 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 7TH DAY OF JUNE 2016/17TH JYAISHTA, 1938

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 2535 of 2016 ()

¶6

SC.NO. 282/2015 OF II ADDL.ASST. SESSIONS COURT, KOZHIKODE CRIME NO. 796/2014 OF NALLALAM POLICE STATION , KOZHIKODE DISTRICT

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED NOS 1 TO 5:

¶8

1. P.P.SHAMSU, AGED 40 YEARS, S/O. HAMSA, PUTHIYAPURAYIL HOUSE, MUKHADAR, MARAKKANKADAVU PARAMBU,MOTOR HOUSE, FRANCIS ROAD, KOZHIKODE.

¶9

2. RASHID A., AGED 29 YEARS, S/O.KHALID, SHAHANA MANZIL, PALADAMCHIRAKKAL HOUSE, KUDATHUMPARA, PANTHEERAMKAVU,

¶10

KOZHIKODE DISTRICT

¶11

3. MUHAMMED HARIS,

¶12

AGED 43 YEARS,S/O. K.T MOIDEEN KOYA, THIRUTHUMMAL HOUSE, COTTON MILL ROAD, THIRUVANNOOR, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.

¶13

4. SAJUL MIKH DAD, AGED 29 YEARS, S/O. KOYAMON,

¶14

KUNNOTHU HOUSE, PERUVATTOOR P.O, KOYILANDI, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.

¶15

5. V.M.K.AHAMMED KOYA,

¶16

AGED 45 YEARS, S/O. KHADER, VAYANGODU HOUSE, PANTHALAYINI, KOYILANDI, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.

¶17

BY ADV. SRI.NIREESH MATHEW

¶18

RESPONDENT(S)/STATE & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT & THE OTHER INJURED:

¶19

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

¶20

2. DEEPAK @ DEEPU,

¶21

AGED 20 YEARS, S/O. RAMADASAN, THARAYIL HOUSE, KALLIKUNNU, ODUMBRA, OLAVANNA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT -673 001

¶22

2/-

¶23

-2-

¶24

CRL.M.C.NO.2535/2016

¶25

3. PRASOBH, AGED 30 YEARS, S/O. SAMIKUTTY,

¶26

MUTHUNGALI HOUSE, ODUMBRA, OLAVANNA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT -673 001

¶27

R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.GITHESH.R. R2 & R3 BY ADV. SRI.N.P.PRAJEESH

¶28

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07-06-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶29

sts

¶30

Crl.MC.No. 2535 of 2016 ()

¶31

APPENDIX

¶32

PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES:

¶33

ANNEX A1 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO.796/2014 OF NALLALAM POLICE STATION, WHICH IS NOW PENDING AS SC. NO.282/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDL. ASST. SESSIONS COURT, KOZHIKODE. ANNEX A2 PHOTOCOPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF EVIDENCE/LIST OF WITNESWSES IN CRIME NO. 796/2014 OF NALLALAM POLICE STATION. ANNEX A3 ORIGINAL OF THE AFFIDAVIT DATED 27-2-2016 EXECUTED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. ANNEX A4 ORIGINAL OF THE AFFIDAVIT DATED 27-2-2016 EXECUTED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶34

RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES:

NIL

/TRUE COPY/

P.A.TO JUDGE

sts

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V., J

¶40

¶41

Crl.M.C. No. 2535 of 2016

¶42

- - - - Dated 7^th June, 2016

¶43

¶44

ORDER

¶45

The petitioners herein are accused Nos. 1 to 5 in S.C.No.282 of 2015 on the files of the II Addl. Asst. Sessions Court, Kozhikode involving offences punishable under Sections 143, 144, 147, 148, 341, 323, 324, 294(b) and 308 read with Section 149 of the IPC. The aforesaid crime was registered at the instance of the 2^nd respondent herein and the 3^rd respondent is the injured.

¶46

This petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the “Code”) seeking to quash all further proceedings in the aforesaid case on the ground that the matter has been amicably resolved between the parties.

¶47

The prosecution allegation is that on 5.10.2014 at about 9.45 pm, the petitioners in furtherance of their common intention assaulted respondents 2 and 3 and cause them injuries.

¶48

Crl.M.C. No. 2535 of 2016 -2-

¶49

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the matter has been amicably settled at the instance of the mediators. It is also submitted that in view of the settlement continuance of the criminal proceedings will not yield any result. Respondents 2 and 3 entered appearance through counsel and it is submitted that the petitioners as well as respondents 2 and 3 are friends from childhood and decided to bury their hatchets. According to the learned counsel for respondents 2 and 3 they do not intend or wish that the criminal proceedings as against the petitioners should continue any further. It is also asserted that the dispute is purely personal. Annexures C and D affidavits sworn to by respondents 2 and 3 are produced in this regard.

¶50

The learned Public Prosecutor on instructions submitted that the State has no objection in acting on Annexures C and D affidavits as it would promote peace and harmony. It is also submitted that the petitioners are not persons with any criminal antecedents.

¶51

Crl.M.C. No. 2535 of 2016

¶52

-3-

¶53

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.

¶54

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

¶55

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

¶56

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 .

¶57

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

¶58

Crl.M.C. No. 2535 of 2016 -4-

¶59

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.

¶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

¶61

Crl.M.C. No. 2535 of 2016 -5-

¶62

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.

¶63

Having regard to the facts and circumstances, I am of the view that continuance of prosecution in the instant case will not yield any result in view of the settlement arrived at. In the result, this petition is allowed. All further proceedings against the petitioners in S.C.No.282 of 2015 on the files of the II Addl. Asst. Sessions Court, Kozhikode shall stand quashed.

¶64

Sd/- RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V., JUDGE

¶65

kp/-8.6.16

P.P.Shamsu v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.P.Shamsu 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

K.P.Madhu Vs v.S.Nawas

Babu Vs State of Kerala

Lalu Vs State of Kerala

Shyju @ Pallan Shyju Vs the State of Kerala

Padmanabhan Vs the Calicut Co-Operative Urban Bank Ltd.

Deepan Babu Vs State of Kerala