Allowed

Hamsa v. Sub Inspector of Police

Kerala HC8 Jun 2016Crl.MC/2931/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed a petition under Section 482 CrPC to quash criminal proceedings instituted against seven accused. The court found that the disputes had been settled amicably out of court by the parties. Quashing the proceedings was deemed necessary to promote peace and harmony and to avoid abuse of process.

What did the court decide?

All further proceedings against the petitioners in C.C.No.461 of 2014 shall stand quashed.

Hamsa Vs Sub Inspector of Police — Public Procurement and Tenders | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF JUNE 2016/18TH JYAISHTA, 1938

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 2931 of 2016 ()

¶6

CC. NO.461/2014 OF CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, KASARAGOD. CRIME NO. 595/2012 OF MANJESHWAR POLICE STATION, KASARAGOD.

¶7

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.1 TO 7:

¶8

1. HAMSA,

¶9

S/O.ISMAIL, AGED 27 YEARS, RAHMATH MANZIL, PERVADI, BAYAR VILLAGE, PP VI-45, PAIVALIKE PANCHAYATH, KASARAGOD.

¶10

¶11

NIZAR,

¶12

S/O.ABDULLA, AGED 24 YEARS SANNADA HOUSE, BAYAR PADAVU, CHIPPAR VILLAGE, PP VI-60, PAIVALIKE PANCHAYATH, KASARAGOD.

¶13

MUNSIR,

¶14

¶15

AGED 24 YEARS, S/O.MOOSA,

¶16

PERVADI HOUSE, NEAR NOOR JUMA MASJID,

¶17

PERVADI, BAYAR VILLAGE, PP VI-72, KASARAGOD.

¶18

SHAFEER,

¶19

¶20

S/O.ABOOBACKER, AGED 25 YEARS, ARAFA MANZIL, NEAR NOOR JUMA MASJID,

¶21

PERVADI, BAYAR VILLAGE, PP VI-66, KASARAGOD.

¶22

5. ASHARAF @ MUHAMMED KUNHI, S/O.MOIDEEN KUNHI, AGED 34 YEARS, KOKANA MAJAL HOUSE, PERVADI,

¶23

BAYAR VILLAGE, PP VII-39, KASARAGOD.

¶24

NAWAS,

¶25

¶26

S/O.ABBAS, AGED 22 YEARS, PERVADI MANZIL, NEAR NOOR JUMA MASJID, PERVADI, BAYAR VILLAGE, PP VI-72, KASARAGOD.

¶27

7. MUJEEB ABOOBACKER,

¶28

S/O. ABOOBACKER, AGED 23 YEARS, NASSEMA MANZIL, NEAR NOOR JUMA MASJID, PERVADI, BAYAR VILLAGE, PP VII-25, KASARAGOD.

¶29

BY ADV. SRI.T.G.RAJENDRAN.

¶30

Crl.MC.No. 2931 of 2016

¶31

RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANTS/STATE:

¶32

1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MANJESHWAR POLICE STATION, KASARAGOD DISTRICT-671 323.

¶33

2. ABDUL ASIF, S/O.ABBAS, AGED 24 YEARS, NEAR MADANI WOOD MILL, BENNUR VILLAGE, KASARAGOD-671 121.

¶34

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

¶35

R1 & R3 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.RAJESH VIJAYAN. R2 BY ADV. SRI.CIBI THOMAS.

¶36

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08-06-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶37

rs.

¶38

Crl.MC.No. 2931 of 2016

¶39

APPENDIX

¶40

PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:-

¶41

ANNEXURE I COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT.

¶42

ANNEXURE II COPY OF THE AFFIDAVITS SWORN IN BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶43

RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES:- NIL.

//TRUE COPY//

P.S. TO JUDGE

rs.

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V., J

¶48

- - - - Crl.M.C. No. 2931 of 2016

¶49

- - - - Dated 8^th June, 2016

¶50

¶51

ORDER

¶52

The petitioners herein are the accused Nos. 1 to 7 in

¶53

C.C.No.461 of 2014 on the files of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kasaragod involving offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 323 and 324 read with Section 149 of the IPC. The 2^nd respondent is the de facto complainant in the above case. This petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the “Code”) seeking to quash the pending criminal proceedings on the ground that the disputes between the parties have been settled out of court by means of a compromise.

¶54

The prosecution allegation is that on 22.19.29012 at about 1 pm the accused persons had wrongfully restrained the de facto complainant and assaulted him with a wooden stick. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for

¶55

Crl.M.C. No.2931 of 2016 -2-

¶56

the petitioners that during the pendency of the criminal proceedings, the parties have buried their hatchets and they do not intend or wish that the criminal proceedings should continue any further. It is also submitted that the petitioners as well as the 2^nd respondent are residents of the same locality and continuation of the prosecution will impede the peace and harmony arrived at by them.

¶57

The 2^nd respondent entered appearance through counsel and endorsed the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners. It is also submitted that the 2^nd respondent has sworn to Annexure II affidavit wherein it is stated that the 2^nd respondent has no objection in quashing the criminal proceedings against the petitioners herein.

¶58

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

¶59

Crl.M.C. No.2931 of 2016

¶60

-3-

¶61

It is thus borne out from the submissions made at

¶62

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.

¶63

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

¶64

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

¶65

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 .

¶66

After having anxiously considered the submissions it

¶67

is felt that it would be unfair and contrary to the interest of

¶68

Crl.M.C. No.2931 of 2016 -4-

¶69

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.

¶70

In the result, this petition is allowed. All further proceedings against the petitioners in C.C.No.461 of 2014 on the files of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kasaragod shall stand quashed.

¶71

Sd/- RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V., JUDGE

¶72

kp/-9.6.16

Hamsa v. Sub Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hamsa v. Sub Inspector of Police

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

Shyju @ Pallan Shyju Vs the State of Kerala

Padmanabhan Vs the Calicut Co-Operative Urban Bank Ltd.

Deepan Babu Vs State of Kerala

M.M.Shoukathali Vs State of Kerala

Yesudas Saimon Vs State of Kerala

Shanmughan Vs State of Kerala