Allowed

Muhammed Marakkar v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC15 Jun 2016Crl.MC/3056/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court at Ernakulam exercised its inherent jurisdiction under S.482 CrPC to quash criminal proceedings against nine accused persons. The court found that the dispute, involving IPC offences related to trespass and affray, had been amicably settled between the rival parties, thereby justifying the termination of the trial to serve the ends of justice.

What did the court decide?

The petition was allowed; all further proceedings against the petitioners in S.T.No.760/2016 were quashed.

Muhammed Marakkar 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

WEDNESDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF JUNE 2016/25TH JYAISHTA, 1938

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 3056 of 2016

¶6

ST 760/2016 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, MANNARKAD CRIME NO. 571/2015 OF NATTUKAL POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED:

¶8

1. MUHAMMED MARAKKAR,

¶9

AGED 61 YEARS, S/O.MUHAMMED KUTTY, ERAMAKA VEETTIL, PUTHIYAKATH CHETTIPADI, MALAPPURAM DIST.

¶10

2. KOYAKUTTY @ MUHAMED HUSSAIN NAHA, AGED 76 YEARS, S/O.KUNJAVA MARAKKAR, KIZHAKKANIYATH HOUSE, PARAPANANGADI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶11

3. MUHAMMED NISHAM, AGED 23 YEARS,

¶12

S/O.MUHAMMED MARAKKAR, ERAMAKA VEETTIL, PUTHIYAKATH, CHETTIPADI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶13

4. JAMAL, AGED 40 YEARS,

¶14

S/O.MUHAMMED HUSSAIN NAHA, PERUMBADAPPIL VEEDU, PARAPPANANGADI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶15

5. RAFEEK,

¶16

AGED 38 YEARS, S/O.MUHAMMED HUSSAIN NAHA, PERUMBADAPPIL VEEDU, PARAPPANANGADI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶17

6. JIMSHAD ALI,

¶18

AGED 36 YEARS, S/O.MUHAMMED HUSSAIN NAHA, KIZHAKINIYATH HOUSE, PARAPPANANGADI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶19

7. KUNJALAN, AGED 71 YEARS, S/O.KUNJAMMU, MANIPARAMBATH HOUSE, VENNIYOOR, MALAPPURAM.

msv/

-2-

-2-

Crl.MC.No. 3056 of 2016

¶24

8. KUNJU @ ABDULLA KUTTY AGED 57 YEARS, MANIPARAMBATH HOUSE, VENIYOOR, MALAPPURAM.

¶25

9. ABDUL RAHIAN, AGED 55 YEARS, ERAMAKAVEETTIL PUTHIYAKATH, VENNIYOOR, MALAPPURAM.

¶26

BY ADV. SRI.C.M.KAMMAPPU

¶27

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

¶28

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, THRIUGH STATION HOUSE OFFICER, NATTUKAL POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

¶29

2. SHIYAS BABU, AGED 37 YEARS, S/O.HAMSA, KANJIRATHI HOUSE, 53RD MILE, NATTUKAL PO, PALAKKAD - 678 024.

¶30

3. SHAHIN, AGED 30 YEARS, S/O.HAMSA, KANJIRATHI HOUSE, 53RD MILE, NATTUKAL PO, PALAKKAD - 678 024.

¶31

4. AYISHA, AGED 55 YEAS, W/O.HAMSA, KANJIRATHI HOUSE, 53RD MILE, NATTUKAL P.O., PALAKKAD - 678 024.

¶32

R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.B.H.MANSOOR. R2-R4 BY ADV. SRI.MANSOOR.B.H.

¶33

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15-06-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶34

msv/

¶35

Crl.MC.No. 3056 of 2016

¶36

APPENDIX

¶37

PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES

¶38

A CERTIFIED COPY OF FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO.571/2015 OF NATTUKAL POLICE STATION

¶39

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

¶40

C AFFIDAVIT OF SETTLEMENT FILED BY THE INJURED /THIRD RESPONDENT

¶41

D AFFIDAVIT OF SETTLEMENT FILED BY THE INJURED /FOURTH RESPONDENT

¶42

RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES:

¶43

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

NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.S.TO JUDGE

Msv/

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V, J

¶49

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

¶50

Crl.M.C.3056 of 2016

¶51

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated 15^th June , 2016

¶52

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

¶53

O R D E R

¶54

1.The petitioners herein are the accused Nos.1 to 9 in S.T.No.760/2016 on the files of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class Court, Mannarkkad. The 2^nd respondent is the de facto complainant and respondents 3 and 4 are the injured witnesses respectively in the aforesaid case.

¶55

2.This petition is filed invoking jurisdiction of this Court under S.482 of the Cr.P.C., seeking premature termination of the criminal proceedings on the ground that the disputes have been amicably settled between the parties.

¶56

3.It is manifest from the records that the aforesaid case had arisen from Crime No.571/2015 of Nattukal police station registered inter alia for offence punishable under S.143, 147, 451, 323, 294(b), 506(1) r/w S.149 of the IPC.

¶57

Crl.M.C.3056 of 2016

¶58

: 2 :

¶59

4.The prosecution allegation is that on 16.09.2015 at about 5.30 p.m., the petitioners had trespassed in to the house of the de

¶60

facto complainant and assaulted him and his family members.

¶61

5.I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as the respondents.

¶62

6.It is submitted that during the pendency of the proceedings, the rival parties have decided to give a quietus to all their subsisting disputes. After much deliberations amongst themselves and at the interventions of persons who are respected by both parties, they have decided to bury the past and turn a new leaf. There is no acrimony between the parties at present and they are living in peace and harmony. To bring on record the settlement, the 1^st respondent has filed an affidavit in which he affirms in unmistakable terms his decision to erase the bitter incidents of the past and to start afresh.

¶63

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

¶64

Crl.M.C.3056 of 2016

¶65

: 3 :

¶66

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

¶67

9.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 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.

¶68

10.I am of the considered opinion that this is one of those exceptional cases where prayer for invocation of the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction can be justifiably invoked to serve the ends of justice as the case falls within the matrix of guidelines laid down by the Apex Court in Gian Singh v. State

¶69

Crl.M.C.3056 of 2016

¶70

: 4 :

¶71

of Punjab ( 2012 (4) KLT 108) and Narinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and anr. reported in (2014) 6

¶72

SCC 466) and other cases.

¶73

11.In the result, this petition is allowed. All further proceedings against the petitioners in S.T.No.760/2016 on the files of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class Court, Mannarkkad, shall stand quashed.

¶74

Sd/-

¶75

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V.

Judge

[True copy]

P.A to Judge

Muhammed Marakkar v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Muhammed Marakkar 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

Anil Kumar Vs State of Kerala

Sumesh Vs Sub Inspector of Police

Sudheer Vs State of Kerala

Mayi Krishnan Vs State of Kerala

Nidhin Vs State of Kerala

Deepak Vs the State of Kerala