Allowed

Faizal v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC25 Jan 2016Crl.MC/264/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam allowed the petition to quash criminal proceedings against five accused petitioners accused of offences under the IPC and related sections under Section 148 CrPC, observing that the matter was amicably settled by the de facto complainant who filed an affidavit confirming no further complaint.

What did the court decide?

All further proceedings in CC No.334/2012 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Hosdurg, as against the petitioners based on the Final Report in Crime No.101/2012 are quashed.

Faizal 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 B.KEMAL PASHA

¶4

MONDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF JANUARY 2016/5TH MAGHA, 1937

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 264 of 2016 ()

¶6

CC. NO.334/2012 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-I, HOSDURG. CRIME NO. 101/2012 OF CHANDERA POLICE STATION, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.

¶7

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 TO 5:

¶8

1. FAIZAL, AGED 23 YEARS, S/O.RAZAK, RESIDING AT URSAHA MANZIL, ORIMUKKU, PADNE VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.

¶9

2. ABID. P.P., AGED 22 YEARS, S/O.MUHAMMEDALI, RESIDING AT SAFIYATH MANZIL, ORIMUKKU, PADNE VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.

¶10

3. IRFAN. K., AGED 22 YEARS, S/O.KHADER, RESIDING AT M.K. HOUSE, ORIMUKKU, PADNE VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.

¶11

4. IJAS. T.K., AGED 23 YEARS, S/O.MUHAMMED KUNHI, RESIDING AT JASEELA MANZIL, ORIMUKKU, PADNE VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.

¶12

5. UBAID. P.C, AGED 23 YEARS, S/O.MUSTHAFA, RESIDING AT SUMAYYA MANZIL, ORIMUKKU, PADNE VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.

¶13

BY ADV. SRI.T.MADHU.

¶14

RESPONDENTS/STATE:

¶15

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

¶16

Crl.MC.No. 264 of 2016

¶17

2. MASHOOD. P, AGED 36 YEARS, S/O.K.P. ABDUL RAHIMAN, RESIDING AT KIZHAKPURAM HOUSE, PADNE THEKKEKKAD, PADNE VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT-671 312.

¶18

R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.SAREENA GEORGE. R2 BY ADV. SMT.G.SANGEETHA

¶19

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25-01-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

rs.

¶21

Crl.MC.No. 264 of 2016

¶22

APPENDIX

¶23

PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:-

¶24

ANNEXURE-A1	THE TRUE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.101/2012 OF CHANDERA POLICE STATION.
ANNEXURE-A2	THE TRUE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO.101/2012 OF CHANDERA POLICE STATION.
ANNEXURE-A3	THE AFFIDAVIT DATED 20-09-2015 SWORN IN BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
ANNEXURE-A4	THE TRUE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE MEMO OF EVIDENCE IN CRIME NO.101/2012 OF CHANDERA POLICE STATION.

¶25

RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES:- NIL.

//TRUE COPY//

P.S. TO JUDGE

rs.

B. KEMAL PASHA, J.

¶30

................................................................ CRL.M.C. No. 264 of 2016

¶31

............................................................... Dated this the 25^th day of January, 2016

¶32

O R D E R

¶33

Petitioners are accused Nos.1 to 5 in C.C. No.334/2012 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-I, Hosdurg, which has arisen from Crime No.101/2012 of the Chandera Police Station, Kasaragod District registered for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 341, 294 (b), 323 and 153 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 149 IPC.

¶34

The matter has been amicably settled between the petitioners and the defacto complainant, who is the second respondent herein. The defacto complainant has filed Annexure-A3 affidavit affirming that the matter has been amicably settled between him and the petitioners and he has no complaints against the petitioners.

¶35

CRL.M.C.No. 264 of 2016

¶36

-: 2 :-

¶37

No criminal antecedents have been reported against the petitioners. When the matter has been amicably settled, no purpose would be served in proceeding with the matter further, and therefore, all further proceedings in C.C. No.334/2012 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-I, Hosdurg, as against the petitioners, based on Annexure-A2 Final Report in Crime No.101/2012 of the Chandera Police Station, Kasaragod, can be quashed.

¶38

In the result, this Crl.M.C. is allowed and all further proceedings in C.C. No.334/2012 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-I, Hosdurg, as against the petitioners, based on Annexure-A2 Final Report in Crime No.101/2012 of the Chandera Police Station, Kasaragod, are hereby quashed.

¶39

Sd/- B. KEMAL PASHA, JUDGE.

¶40

ul/-

¶41

[True copy] P.S. to Judge

Faizal v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Faizal 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Case details

Similar cases

Ajayan Vs State of Kerala

Padmasree Textiles Vs State of Kerala

S. Suresh Babu Vs Vijayarajan

Sudheesh Vs State of Kerala

Sreekumar E.R Vs State of Kerala

Saneer Vs State of Kerala