Allowed

Abbas v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC25 Oct 2016Crl.MC/3375/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal miscellaneous petition sought quashing of criminal proceedings against petitioners accused of offences under various sections of the IPC. The court noted the complainant's affidavit stating no subsisting grievance and a settlement between parties. Quashing the proceedings was allowed as the offences were not grave, there was no societal impact, and continuation would be futile.

What did the court decide?

The criminal proceedings in C.C. No. 729 of 2014 and the Final Report against the petitioners at the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Aluva, are quashed.

Abbas 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

TUESDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2016/3RD KARTHIKA, 1938

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 3375 of 2016 ()

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC 729/2014 of J.M.F.C.-I, ALUVA DATED

¶7

CRIME NO. 300/2013 OF ALUVA EAST POLICE STATION , ERNAKULAM

¶8

PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED:

¶9

ABBAS AGED:22 YEARS, S/O KASSIM, MEENTHARAKKAL HOUSE, COMPARA, ALUVA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT

¶10

NIZAMUDHEEN AGED:21 YEARS, S/O IBRAHIM, CHETTIYALIL HOUSE, COMPARA, ALUVA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT

¶11

ANAS AGED:20 YEARS, S/O ALIYAR, CHETTIYALIL HOUSE, COMPARA, ALUVA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT

¶12

ASHIQUE AGED;21 YEARS, S/O ALI, CHELAKKARA HOUSE, NOCHIMA KARA, ALUVA ERNAKULAM DISTRICT

¶13

ABOOBACKER @ BINU AGED:22 YEARS, S/O KASSIM, MEENTHARAKKAL HOUSE, COMPARA, ALUVA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT

¶14

BY ADVS.SRI.H.NUJUMUDEEN SRI.P.E.SAJAL

¶15

RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT:

¶16

STATE OF KERALA THROUGH S.H.O ALUVA EAST POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031

¶17

AJMAL AGED:19 YEARS, S/O NASSAR, MELAMPARAMPIL HOUSE, KADUNGALLOOR, ERNAKUALM-683101

¶18

R2 BY ADV. SRI.SALIM V.S. R BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, SRI.AMJAD ALI

¶19

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25-10-2016, ALONG WITH CRMC. 3377/2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

CONTD..

¶21

:2:

¶22

Crl.MC.No. 3375 of 2016 () ---------------------------

¶23

APPENDIX

¶24

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ----------------------A1 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO. 300/13 A2 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE CHARGE SHEET A3 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE WOUND CERTIFICATE OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT A4 AFFIDAVIT SIGNED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : NIL -----------------------

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE

SKS

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V., J.

¶29

Crl.M.C. No. 3375 of 2016

¶30

Dated this the 25^th day of October, 2016

¶31

O R D E R

¶32

~~~~~~~~

¶33

This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal

¶34

Procedure (for short 'Code') has been preferred by the petitioners,who are the accused Nos. 1, 3, 4, 5 and 7 in C.C. No. 729 of 2014 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate I, Aluva. They are proceeded against for having committed offences punishable under Section 143, 147, 341, 323 r/w Section 149 of the IPC.

¶35

2.The prosecution allegation is that on 25.01.2013 at 4.00 pm, the petitioners along with accused Nos. 2 and 6 who are juveniles, had formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and after wrongfully restraining the 2^nd respondent, assaulted him causing injuries. The accused Nos. 2 and 6 being juveniles, are being separately proceeded before the Juvenile Justice Board.

¶36

3.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners,

¶37

Crl. M.C. No. 3375 of 2016

¶38

-2-

¶39

the 2^nd respondent as well as the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶40

4.The 2^nd respondent has filed Annexure-A4 affidavit wherein it is stated that he has no subsisting grievance against the petitioners . He asserts in the affidavit that he does not wish that the criminal proceedings against the petitioners should continue.

¶41

5.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that in view of the settlement arrived at between the parties, this Court will be justified in quashing the proceedings.

¶42

6.The learned Public Prosecutor after getting instructions has expressed his reservations in the matter of quashing the proceedings on the basis of settlement. It is submitted that the invocation of powers under Section 482 of the Code in a case of this nature is not warranted. However, it is submitted that no other cases are reported against the petitioners.

¶43

Crl. M.C. No. 3375 of 2016

¶44

-3-

¶45

7.In Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Another [2012 (10)SCC 303], the Apex Court has crystalised the position in respect of the powers vested in the High Court under S.482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, to quash criminal proceedings. It was held that the power vested in the High Court under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, is not limited to quashing proceedings within the ambit and scope of Section 320 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The three - Judge Bench in the above case, clearly expounded, that quashing of criminal proceedings under S.482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, could also be based on settlements between private parties, and could also on a compromise between the offender and the victim. Only that, the above power did not extend to crimes against the society. It is also relevant to mention, that the jurisdiction vested in the High Court under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, for quashing criminal proceedings, was held to be exercisable in criminal cases

¶46

Crl. M.C. No. 3375 of 2016

¶47

-4-

¶48

having an overwhelming and predominatingly civil flavour, particularly offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership, or such like transactions. Or even offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry etc. or family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal. In all such cases, the parties should have resolved their entire dispute by themselves, mutually. Further, guidelines were issued by the Apex Court in Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab [2014 (6) SCC 466] and recently in Rajesh Kamath J. and Others v. Mohana Kurup and Others [AIR 2016 SC 2452].

¶49

8.I have considered the rival submissions and I have gone through the materials on record. 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. More over, when the

¶50

Crl. M.C. No. 3375 of 2016

¶51

-5-

¶52

respondent No.2 has settled the matter, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and the continuation of the criminal case against the petitioners would be a futile exercise. It would also put the petitioners and the 2^nd respondent to great oppression and prejudice

¶53

9.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.

¶54

In the result, this petition will stand allowed. AnnexureA2 final report and all proceedings pursuant thereto against the petitioners now pending as C.C. No. 729 of 2014 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Aluva are quashed.

¶55

Sd/-

¶56

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN, V. JUDGE

¶57

SKS

¶58

//TRUE COPY//

¶59

P.A. TO JUDGE

Abbas v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abbas 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

Abdusalam Vs State of Kerala

Shakir Vs State of Kerala

Ajeer Vs M.K.Sayed

Shiju Vs Nisamudheen

Suresh M.K. Vs State Ofkerala

Shameem @ Shameemudheen Vs State of Kerala