Allowed

Aslam v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC20 Jun 2016Crl.MC/3129/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Kerala allowed a petition under Section 482 CrPC to quash criminal proceedings arising from kidnapping and assault charges. The court held that since the matter was settled, the offence was personal in nature, and conviction was remote, invoking inherent jurisdiction to quash suits the ends of justice and promotes harmony.

What did the court decide?

All further proceedings against the petitioners in S.C.No.807 of 2015 (and related cases as modified) shall stand quashed.

Aslam 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 RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶4

MONDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF JUNE 2016/30TH JYAISHTA, 1938

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 3129 of 2016 ()

¶6

SC 807/2015 OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT - II, PARAVUR. CRIME NO. 230/2014 OF ELAMAKKARA POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED 1-3:

¶8

1. ASLAM, AGED 40 YEARS, S/O MUHAMMED, RESIDING AT HOUSE NO. 14/2168, NEAR CHAKKANATTU TEMPLE, THOPPUMPADY, THOPPUMPADY VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶9

2. SHAMJAD @ FAISAL, AGED 31 YEARS, S/O SALEEM, RESIDING AT INIKAL HOUSE, DESHABHIMANI ROAD, PALLURUTHI, THOPUMPADY VILLAGE, KOCHI-6, ERNAKULAM DIST.

¶10

3. THAJUDEEN, AGED 35 YEARS, S/O IBRAHIMKUTTY, RESIDING AT KOLLAMPARAMBU HOUSE, KEDAMANAGALAM, KEDAMANAGALAM VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶11

BY ADV. SRI.T.MADHU

¶12

RESPONDENT(S)/STATE:

¶13

1.THE STATE OF KERALA, THROUGH THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, ELAMAKKARA POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031.

¶14

2.MUHAMMED RIYAS, S/O ALIKUTTY, AGED 43 YEARS, RESIDING AT KOTTARATHIL HOUSE, SREENARAYANA BYE PASS LANE,CHUTTUPADUKARA, EDAPALLY NORTH VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-682012.

¶15

--2--

¶16

--2--

¶17

Crl.MC.No. 3129 of 2016 ()

¶18

3.ABDUL RAHIM, S/O ALIKUTTY,

¶19

AGED 59 YEARS, RESIDING AT KOTTARATHIL HOUSE, PUNNAKKAL, ELAMAKKARA KARA, EDAPPALLY SOUTH VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-682012.

¶20

R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.RAJESH VIJAYAN R2 & R3 BY SMT.G.SANGEETHA

¶21

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20-06-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

mbr/

¶23

Crl.MC.No. 3129 of 2016 ()

¶24

APPENDIX

¶25

PETITIONER(S)'ANNEXURES:

¶26

ANNEXURE A1 : THE TRUE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.230/14 OF ELAMAKKARA POLICE STATION. ANNEXURE A2 : THE TRUE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO 230/14 OF ELAMAKKARA POLICE STATION. ANNEXURE A3 : THE AFFIDAVIT DT. 27/11/15 SWORN IN BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. ANNEXURE A4 : THE AFFIDAVIT DT. 27/11/15 SWORN IN BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. ANNEXURE A5 : THE TRUE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE MEMO OF EVIDENCE IN CRIME NO. 230/14 OF ELAMAKKARA POLICE STATION.

¶27

RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES: NIL ------------------------

//TRUE COPY//

P.S. TO JUDGE

mbr/

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V., J

¶32

¶33

Crl.M.C. No. 3129 of 2016

¶34

- - - - Dated 20^th June, 2016

¶35

¶36

ORDER

¶37

The petitioners herein are accused Nos.1 to 3 in S.C.No.807 of 2015 on the files of the Additional Sessions Court - II, Paravur. They have preferred this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') seeking to quash the proceedings on the ground that the matter has been settled with the de facto complainant. The 2^nd respondent is the de facto complainant and 3^rd respondent is the injured witness in the case.

¶38

2.The aforesaid case has arisen from Crime No.230 of 2014 registered inter alia for offences punishable under Sections 342, 323, 364(A) and 294(b) read with Section 34 of the IPC, Section 17 of the Kerala Money Lenders Act and Sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Exorbitant Interest Act, 2013.

¶39

Crl.M.C. No.3129/2016

¶40

-2-

¶41

3.The prosecution allegation is that on 2.5.2014 at 2.35 pm the petitioners have kidnapped the 2^nd respondent in a car and assaulted him.

¶42

4.I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, respondents 2 and 3 and the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶43

5.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, respondents have filed separate affidavits in which they affirms in unmistakable terms their decision to erase the bitter incidents of the past and to start afresh.

¶44

6.The learned Public Prosecutor, on instructions, submits

¶45

Crl.M.C. No.3129/2016

¶46

-3-

¶47

that the petitioners are not persons with criminal antecedents.

¶48

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

¶49

8.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.

¶50

9.I am of the considered opinion that this is one of those exceptional cases where prayer for invocation of the

¶51

Crl.M.C. No.3129/2016 -4-

¶52

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 of Punjab ( 2012 (4) KLT 108) and Narinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and anr. (2014) 6 SCC 466) and other cases.

¶53

In the result, this petition is allowed. All further proceedings against the petitioners in S.C.No.807 of 2015 on the files of the learned Additional Sessions Court-II, Paravaur shall stand quashed.

¶54

Sd/- RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V., JUDGE

¶55

kp/-20.6.16

¶56

Crl.M.C. No.3129/2016

¶57

-5-

¶58

The last sentence “ All further proceedings against the petitioners in S.C.No.807 of 2015 on the files of the learned Additional Sessions Court-II, Paravaur shall stand quashed ” occurring in the operative portion of the order dated 20.6.2016 in Crl.M.C.No.3129/2016 is modified as “ All further proceedings against the 1^st petitioner now pending as C.P.No.32 of 2015 on the files of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class Court-II Aluva and the proceedings against petitioners 2 and 3 now pending as S.C.No.807 of 2015 on the file of the Additional Sessions Court-II, North Paravur shall stand quashed. ”

¶59

Vide order dated 27-09-2016 in Crl.M.A.No.9813/2016 in Crl.M.C.No.3129/2016.

¶60

Registrar (Judicial)

Aslam v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aslam 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Reghu T.A Vs State of Kerala

Muneer Vs State of Kerala

Chandran V.P Vs Bank of Baroda

Bibin Vs State of Kerala

Aneesh K.V Vs the State of Kerala

Abdul Rahiman K.P. Vs Station House Officer