Allowed

Anas v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC4 Jul 2016Crl.MC/3050/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment allowed a petition to quash criminal proceedings under Section 482 CrPC. The Court quashed charges of voluntary injury against four accused persons who had reached an out-of-court settlement with the de facto complainant, noting the personal nature of the offence.

What did the court decide?

All further proceedings against the petitioners in C.C. No. 764 of 2013 before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Perinthalmanna, shall stand quashed.

Anas Vs State of Kerala — Cheating and Forgery | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶4

MONDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF JULY 2016/13TH ASHADHA, 1938

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 3050 of 2016 ()

¶6

CC. NO.764/2013 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-I, PERINTHALMANNA. CRIME NO. 422/2013 OF PERINTHALMANNA POLICE STATION.

¶7

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED:

¶8

1. ANAS, AGED 26 YEARS, S/O.ABUBACKER, ERAKADAVATH HOUSE,

¶9

PULINKAVU, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶10

2. MANSOOR, AGED 24 YEARS,

¶11

S/O.VEERANKUTTY, CHERKUZHIYIL HOUSE, CHERUKARA, PERINTHALMANNA.

¶12

3. SHAFEEK, AGED 25 YEARS,

¶13

S/O.SULAIMAN, KUPOOTH HOUSE,

¶14

CHERUKARA, PERINTHALMANNA.

¶15

4. SUDHEER, AGED 34 YEARS, S/O.SREEDHARAN, PAINKULATH HOUSE, CHERUKARA, PERINTHALMANNA.

¶16

BY ADV. SRI.C.M.KAMMAPPU.

¶17

RESPONDENTS/STATE & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT/INJURED:

¶18

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, THROUGH STATION HOUSE OFFICER, PERINTHALMANNA POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶19

2. MUHAMMED MUBASHIR @ MUBASHIR, AGED 19 YEARS, S/O.BASHEER, PULAKKAPARAMBIL HOUSE, CHERUKARA, PERINTHALMANNA.

¶20

R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.SAREENA GEORGE. R2 BY ADV. SRI.MANSOOR.B.H.

¶21

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04-07-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

rs.

¶23

Crl.MC.No. 3050 of 2016

¶24

APPENDIX

¶25

PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:-

¶26

ANNEXURE A CERTIFIED COPY OF FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO.574/2015 OF NATTUKAL POLICE STATION.

¶27

ANNEXURE B AFFIDAVIT OF SETTLEMENT FILED BY THE DEFACTO COMPLAINANT/SECOND RESPONDENT.

¶28

RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES:- NIL.

//TRUE COPY//

P.S. TO JUDGE

rs.

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN, V., J.

¶33

Crl.M.C. No.3050 of 2016

¶34

Dated this the 4^th day of July, 2016

¶35

O R D E R

¶36

~~~~~~~~

¶37

1.The petitioners herein are the accused Nos. 1 to 4 in C.C.No.764 of 2013 on the files of the Judicial Magistrate

¶38

of First Class-I, Perinthalmanna.

¶39

2.They have preferred this petition 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

¶40

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

¶41

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

¶42

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

¶43

with a prayer to quash the proceedings. The sole ground is that the Apex Court in the above judgments have delineated the circumstances and the cases in which inherent powers under Section 482 can be invoked de

¶44

Crl.M.C. No.3050/2016

¶45

-2-

¶46

hors section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for recognizing out of court settlement for the purpose of quashing criminal proceedings.

¶47

3.Referring to the facts, it is borne out from the records that Crime No.422 of 2013 of Perinthalmanna Police Station was registered at the instance of the 2^nd respondent herein alleging offence punishable under Sections 324 and 341 read with Section 34 of the IPC. The prosecution allegation is that on 22.3.2013 at 11.30 a.m. the petitioners attacked the de facto complainant with wooden sticks.

¶48

4.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 proceeding will hinder their cordial relationship in no small measure. To bring on record the settlement, the 2^nd

¶49

Crl.M.C. No.3050/2016

¶50

-3-

¶51

respondent has also filed an affidavit wherein he states in unequivocal terms that the disputes have been amicably resolved and reiterates that he has no objection in terminating the proceedings.

¶52

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

¶53

6.I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions

¶54

made across the bar and I have also gone through the materials on record.

¶55

7.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 conviction is remote and bleak. It can only result in

¶56

Crl.M.C. No.3050/2016

¶57

-4-

¶58

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.

¶59

8.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.

¶60

In the result, this petition is allowed. All further proceedings against the petitioners , who are accused No 1 to 4 , in C.C.No.746 of 2013 on the files of the Judicial Magistrate of 1^st Class- I, Perinthalmanna shall stand quashed.

¶61

Sd/-

¶62

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN, V. JUDGE

¶63

Ps/5/7/16

Anas v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anas 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

Sivalingaiah Vs State of Kerala

Sathyan Vs State of Kerala

Shybu Vs State of Kerala

Riya Agnus Frank Vs State of Kerala

Fr. Joseph M. Vs State of Kerala

State of Kerala Vs Abdul Majeed.K.K