Allowed

M.M.Shoukathali v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC8 Jun 2016Crl.MC/3168/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court order quashes criminal proceedings against the petitioner under Section 482 CrPC. The substratum of the case was destroyed by the acquittal of co-accused on merits, and a settlement was reached with the de facto complainant and injured witnesses, justifying the invocation of extraordinary jurisdiction.

What did the court decide?

All further proceedings against the petitioner in C.P.No.56 of 2016 are quashed.

M.M.Shoukathali Vs State of Kerala — Anticipatory Bail | 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. 3168 of 2016 ()

¶6

--------------------------CP. NO.54/2016 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-II, KANNUR.

¶7

PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.2:

¶8

M.M. SHOUKATHALI, S/O. N.P. MOIDU, AGED 31 YEARS, M.M. HOUSE, P.O. KATTAMPALLY, CHIRAKKAL, KANNUR.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.G.S.KRISHNAN KARTHA, SRI.LIJIN THAMBAN, SRI.K.K.MUHAMMAD FOUZ.

¶10

RESPONDENTS/STATE & DEFACTO COMPLAINANTS 2 TO 5:

¶11

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN-682 031.

¶12

2. N. CHANDRAN, S/O. KUNHAMBU, AGED 60 YEARS, NARIKKUTTI HOUSE, KATTAMBILLI P.O., CHIRAKKAL, KANNUR-670 015.

¶13

3. MIKHDAD K.P., S/O. HAMEED, AGED 51 YEARS, K.P. HOUSE, KATTAMBILLI P.O., CHIRAKKAL, KANNUR-670 015.

¶14

4. M.A. SHAMEER, S/O. HUSSAIN, AGED 37 YEARS, M.A. HOUSE, KATTAMBILLI P.O., CHIRAKKAL, KANNUR-670 015.

¶15

R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.SAREENA GEORGE. BY ADV. SRI.M.JAYAKRISHNAN.

¶16

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

¶17

rs.

¶18

Crl.MC.No. 3168 of 2016

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:-

¶21

ANNEXURE A1 CERTIFIED COPY OF JUDGMENT IN SC 3/2011 OF ASST. SESSIONS JUDGE, THALASSERY. ANNEXURE A2 COPY OF JUDGMENT OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA IN CRL.MC NO.5142/2014. ANNEXURE A3 AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE RESPONDENTS 2 TO 4.

¶22

RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES:- NIL.

//TRUE COPY//

P.S. TO JUDGE

rs.

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V., J

¶27

¶28

Crl.M.C. No. 3168 of 2016

¶29

- - - - Dated 8^th June, 2016

¶30

¶31

ORDER

¶32

The petitioner herein is the 2^nd accused in Crime No.117 of 2006 of Valapattanam Police Station. After investigation, final report was laid before the jurisdictional Magistrate against the petitioner and 19 others. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions, Thalassery and was taken cognizance of as SC No. 3 of 2008. The accused No's 1, 3 to 8, 10, 11, 13, 14 and 16 to 20 appeared before court below and faced trial.

¶33

As per Annexure A 1 judgment dated 3.11.2011 the learned Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case against the said accused and on its basis the accused were acquitted under Section 232 of the Cr.P.C. The case against the petitioner as well as the 12^th accused was re-filed.

¶34

While so, the 12^th accused against whom committal

¶35

Crl.M.C. No.3168 of 2016 -2-

¶36

proceedings were pending as C.P.No.59 of 2014 approached this Court by moving a petition under Section 482 of the Code seeking to quash the proceedings against him on the ground that the substratum of the case has been shattered. This Court as per Annexure A2 order dated 30.10.2014 in Crl.M.C.No.5142 of 2014 has allowed the petition.

¶37

The petitioner is now before this Court seeking exercise of powers of this Court under Section 482 of the Code on twin grounds.The learned counsel submits that the substratum of the case has been destroyed owing to the acquittal of the co-accused. It is also submitted that he has entered into a settlement with the de facto complainant and reference is made to Annexure A3 affidavit sworn to by respondents 2 to 4.

¶38

It is submitted that the disputes have been amicably resolved and there is no point in pursuing with the criminal proceedings.

¶39

The 2^nd respondent is the de facto complainant and respondents 3 and 4 are the injured witnesses. They have entered appearance through counsel. The learned counsel

¶40

Crl.M.C. No.3168 of 2016 -3-

¶41

submits that the matter has been settled and that the said respondents did not intend or wish that the criminal proceedings against the petitioner should continue. It is further submitted that respondents 2 to 4 have no objection in allowing this petition and quashing the proceedings as against the petitioner herein.

¶42

The learned Public Prosecutor submits that the petitioner is not a person with any criminal antecedents. However, it is submitted that against the petitioner, offence under Section 436 and 450 of the IPC are also alleged and those crimes being grave in nature this Court should refrain from exercising powers under Section 482 of the Code to quash the proceedings.

¶43

I have heard the rival submissions and have anxiously gone through the judgment rendered by the learned Sessions Judge. After evaluating the evidence in detail, the learned Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that the prosecution had miserably failed to prove its case against the accused persons and on its basis the accused were acquitted under Section 232 of the Cr.P.C. In Moosa

¶44

Crl.M.C. No.3168 of 2016 -4-

¶45

v. Sub Inspector of Police (2006 (1) KLT 552) and also Ashraf Kancheriyil v. State of Kerala (2011 (2) KHC

¶46

812) it has been held that when substratum of the case is destroyed, there is no point in pursuing with the prosecution as against the other accused. In the instant case the injured witnesses and the de facto complainant have filed separate affidavits asserting that they have entered into an amicable settlement with the petitioner and they do not wish to proceed with the criminal prosecution.

¶47

After hearing the counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Public prosecutor and the learned counsel for the respondents 2 to 4, 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. The bona fides of the petitioner in approaching this court with the prayer cannot be doubted as the substratum of the case has been destroyed. It has been held by the Apex Court that, the High Court, while exercising powers under Section 482 of the Code will be justified in quashing cases involving even

¶48

Crl.M.C. No.3168 of 2016 -5-

¶49

non-compoundable offence, if the disputes are really private in nature and no public interests are involved, provided that the offences are not of the gravely objectionable variety. I am convinced that the extraordinary powers under Section 482 of the Code can be invoked as the case falls within the matrix of guidelines laid down by the Apex Court in Gian

¶50

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

¶51

reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466) and other cases.

¶52

Having regard to the facts and circumstances, I am of the view that the petition can be allowed. All further proceedings against petitioner herein in C.P.No.56 of 2016 on the files of the Judicial Magistrate of 1^st Class, Kannur arisen from crime No.117 of 2006 of the Valapattanam Police Station shall stand quashed.

¶53

Sd/- RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V., JUDGE

¶54

kp/-9.6.16

M.M.Shoukathali v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.M.Shoukathali 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

Shyju @ Pallan Shyju Vs the State of Kerala

Padmanabhan Vs the Calicut Co-Operative Urban Bank Ltd.

Deepan Babu Vs State of Kerala

Hamsa Vs Sub Inspector of Police

Yesudas Saimon Vs State of Kerala

Shanmughan Vs State of Kerala