Allowed

Favas N.K. v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC8 Nov 2016Crl.MC/3180/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court quashed criminal proceedings against petitioners, Engineering students, under IPC sections and the Kerala Prohibition of Ragging Act. Relying on setlements between victim and accused, the court held quashing was necessary to secure ends of justice and prevent abuse of process amidst personal reconciliation.

What did the court decide?

The pending criminal proceedings S.C. No.126 of 2016 of Additional District and Sessions Court, Manjeri and all proceedings pursuant thereto were quashed.

Favas N.K. 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

TUESDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2016/17TH KARTHIKA, 1938

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 3180 of 2016

¶6

S.C.NO. 126/2016 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT, MANJERI

¶7

CRIME NO. 519/2015 OF MELATTOOR POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT

¶8

PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED :

¶9

FAVAS N.K., S/O.SULAIMAN, NECHIKKADAN HOUSE, KARULAI P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶10

MURSHID ALI, S/O.SHOUKATHALI, VALAPRA HOUSE, CHANDAKUNNU P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶11

FARSEEN,

¶12

S/O.C.MAMUKKOYA, POTTAMMAL HOUSE, NEDIYIRIPPU, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶13

MASHROOL, S/O.HAMZA FOUSI, CHEERAMATH HOUSE, CHEMMANIYOD, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶14

AGOSH,

¶15

S/O.KUNHIRAMAN, KALATHIL HOUSE, CHATTIPARAMBU, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶16

GOKUL KRISHNA, S/O. GOPAKUMARAN, GOKULAM HOUSE, VALLUVANGAD P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶17

SHIMIL BABU, S/O.SAKEER HUSSAIN, KINATTINGAL HOUSE, KODUR P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶18

BY ADV. SRI.K.RAKESH

¶19

..2/-

¶20

..2..

¶21

Crl.MC.No. 3180 of 2016

¶22

RESPONDENT(S)/STATE & INJURED :

¶23

1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN-682 031FOR THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MELATTOOR POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶24

2. MUHAMMED SHAFEEQ AGED 18 YEARS, S/O.ABDUL AZEEZ, JALALIYA MANZIL, CHOORAPOYIL, PUNNAPALA P.O., NILAMBUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-679 328.

¶25

R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. T.R.RENJITH R2 BY ADV. SMT.K.NISHA

¶26

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08-11-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶27

Msd.

¶28

Crl.MC.No. 3180 of 2016

¶29

APPENDIX

¶30

PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES :

¶31

A1. TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF EVIDENCE AND CHARGE IN CRIME NO.519/2015 OF MELATTOOR POLICE STATION.

¶32

A2 TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 01/05/2016.

¶33

A3 TRUE COPY OF THE SECONDARY SCHOOL LEAVING CERTIFICATE OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶34

RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES :

NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.A.TO JUDGE

Msd.

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V, J

¶40

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

¶41

Crl.M.C. No. 3180 of 2016

¶42

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

¶43

Dated this the 8^th day of November, 2016

¶44

O R D E R

¶45

1.This petition is filed under S.482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ( hereinafter referred to as the Code ) with a prayer to invoke the extraordinary inherent powers and to quash the pending criminal proceedings.

¶46

2.The petitioners herein are the accused Nos. 1 to 7 in S.C. No.126 of 2016 on the file of the Additional Sessions Court, Manjeri. They stand indicted for having committed offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 341, 323 of the IPC and Section 4 of the Kerala Prohibition of Ragging Act.

¶47

The prosecution allegation as is revealed from Annexure A final report runs in the following lines :-

¶48

The petitioners and the 2^nd respondent are Engineering students of the MEA Engineering College at Vengoor. More specifically, the 2^nd respondent is a 1^st year Computer

¶49

Crl.M.C. No. 3180 of 2016

¶50

¶51

Science Enginering student and the petitioners are 2^nd year students of the Electrical and Electronics Engineering branch. On 29.07.2015, while the students were travelling in the College Bus, the petitioners asked the 2^nd respondent to sing a song. The 2^nd respondent did not heed to their demand. On the next day while the 2^nd respondent was returning from the Electrical Workshop, the petitioners are alleged to have wrongfully restrained him and thereafter assaulted him with their hands. Immediately thereafter, the 2^nd respondent lodged a complaint before the Principal of the College which was forwarded to the Police resulting in the registration of the crime.

¶52

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner , the 2^nd respondent as well as the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶53

It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the

¶54

Crl.M.C. No. 3180 of 2016

¶55

¶56

2^nd respondent that after the incident, the parties and their respective families have sat together and decided that it was not in their best interests to continue with the prosecution .According to the learned counsel , the 2^nd respondent and thepetitioners are now close friends and he does not wish that the criminal proceedings should continue any further . Attention of this Court is also drawn to the affidavit filed by the 2^nd respondent to buttress his submission. It is urged that the dispute is purely personal in nature and would not affect public peace or tranquility . Summing up it is prayed that the criminal proceedings be terminated to promote peace and harmony.

¶57

6.The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioners are students and their whole life has been shattered as a result of them being implicated in this case. The counsel refers to the final report and submits that a trivial incident has been blown beyond proportion

¶58

Crl.M.C. No. 3180 of 2016

¶59

¶60

and prays for invocation of powers of this Court.

¶61

7.The learned Public Prosecutor on instructions submits that

¶62

the investigating officer had recorded the statement of the victim and he has stated that he has no subsisting grievance . No serious objection is raised , taking note of the fact that the parties are students. It is also submitted that no other cases are reported against the petitioners.

¶63

8.I have considered the submissionsand have gone through

¶64

the materials on record.

¶65

9.In Gian singh v. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303

¶66

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

¶67

end to the criminal proceedings. It was observed as follows :

¶68

“61. In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceedings or continuation of criminal proceedings

¶69

Crl.M.C. No. 3180 of 2016

¶70

¶71

would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and the wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in the affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceedings.”

¶72

10.The aforesaid dictum stands reiterated by the Apex Court

¶73

in Narinder singh v. State of Punjab. (2014) 6 SCC

¶74

466, the pertinent observations which are as under:

¶75

XXXXXXXXXXXX

¶76

29.2. When the parties have reached the settlement and on that basis petition for quashing the criminal proceedings is filed, the guiding factor in such cases would be to secure:

¶77

(i) ends of justice, or

¶78

(ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any court. While exercising the power the High Court is to form an opinion on either of the aforesaid two objectives.

¶79

xxxxxxx

¶80

xxxxxxx

¶81

11.Though the act committed by the petitioners cannot be

¶82

justified, I take note of the fact that no grave physical

¶83

Crl.M.C. No. 3180 of 2016

¶84

¶85

harm was caused. The statement of the 2^nd respondent recorded by the police and also his affidavit reveals that the parties are studying in the same college and are now friends . The offence committed by the petitioners cannot be said to be grave and serious having ingredients of extreme mental depravity. It also does not appear that the offence in this case will have a serious impact on the society. It is felt that quashing of proceedings on account of compromise would bring about peace and secure the ends of justice. Even otherwise, persisting with the prosecution would be nothing but a waste of time as the prospects of conviction would be bleak.

¶86

12.Having considered all the relevant circumstances, I am of the considered view that this Court will be well justified in invoking its extra ordinary powers under Section 482 of the Code to quash the proceedings.

¶87

In the result, this petition will stand allowed. Annexure-A

¶88

Crl.M.C. No. 3180 of 2016

¶89

¶90

final report and all proceedings pursuant thereto against the petitioners now pending as S.C. No.126 of 2016 of Additional District and Sessions Court, Manjeri are quashed.

¶91

Sd/RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V. JUDGE

¶92

SKS

¶93

//TRUE COPY//

¶94

P.A. TO JUDGE

Favas N.K. v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Favas N.K. 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

Savithri Vijayan Vs State of Kerala

V.K.Vivek Vs State of Kerala

Kalader Vs State of Kerala

Pavanan Vs Hari Shankar.I.P.S.

Andul Salam Palakkavalappil Vs State of Kerala

Sabid Hassan @ Alikutty Vs S.I. of Police, Perumpetty Police Station