Allowed

Shiju v. Nisamudheen

Kerala HC25 Oct 2016Crl.MC/3377/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court allowed a criminal revision petition under Section 482 CrPC, quashing proceedings in a case involving trespass and mischief. The court held that despite the non-extraditable nature of the offences, the settlement between private parties and the lack of grave mental depravity justified invoking extraordinary powers.

What did the court decide?

C.C. No. 733 of 2014 and all proceedings pursuant thereto were quashed.

Shiju Vs Nisamudheen — Criminal Trial and Appeal | 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. 3377 of 2016 ()

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC 733/2014 of J.M.F.C.-I, ALUVA DATED CRIME NO. 303/2013 OF ALUVA EAST POLICE STATION , ERNAKULAM

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED NOS1 TO 4:

¶8

SHIJU AGED 31 YEARS, S/O BEKKAR, PALLIKUDY HOUSE, COMPARA, MILTON NAGAR, ALUVA.

¶9

HANEEFA AGED 35 YEARS,S/O ISMAIL, CHANDRAHIL HOUSE, COMPARA, NAD P.O., ALUVA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 3. SHIJAR AGED 33 YEARS, S/O ALIYAR, CHALAYIL HOUSE, NOCHIMA, NAD P.O., ALUVA , ERNAKULAM DIST.

¶10

LATHEEF AGED 28 YEARS, S/O MAMMALI, KIZHAKKAMBILLI HOUSE, COMPARA, NAD P.O., ALUVA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT BY ADVS.SRI.SALIM V.S. SRI.SHANAVAS.S

¶11

RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT:

¶12

NISAMUDHEEN AGED 21 YEARS, S/O IBRAHIM, CHETTIYALIL HOUSE, AL-AMEEN NAGAR, NOCHIMA, COMPARA, N.A.D.P.O., ALUVA ERNAKULAM DIST, PIN-683 563 2. STATE OF KERALA THROUGH S.H.O ALUVA EAST POLICE STATION , REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN- 682 031 R1 BY ADV. SRI.H.NUJUMUDEEN R BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, SRI. AMJAD ALI

¶13

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25-10-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: CONTD..

¶14

:2:

¶15

Crl.MC.No. 3377 of 2016 ()

¶16

APPENDIX

¶17

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶18

----------------------A1 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE F.I.R. IN CRIME NO.303/2013 A2 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO.303/2013

¶19

A3 AFFIDAVIT SIGNED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT

¶20

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE

SKS

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V., J.

¶25

Crl.M.C. No. 3377 of 2016

¶26

Dated this the 25^th day of October, 2016

¶27

O R D E R

¶28

~~~~~~~~

¶29

This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'Code') has been preferred by the petitioners who are the accused Nos. 1 to 4 in C.C. No. 733 of 2014 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate 1, Aluva. In the said case, the petitioners are being proceeded against for having committed offences punishable under Section 451, 435 r/w 34 of the IPC. The first respondent is the de facto complainant.

¶30

2.The prosecution allegation is that on 26.01.2013 at 7 am, the petitioners trespassed into the Socker Seven Arts & Sports Club, where the 1^st respondent is working and caused mischief and loss to the tune of Rs. 7,000/-

¶31

3.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶32

4.The 1^st respondent has entered appearance through his

¶33

Crl. M.C. No. 3377 of 2016

¶34

-2-

¶35

counsel and has filed Annexure-A3 affidavit wherein it is stated that he has no subsisting grievance against them. He asserts in the affidavit that he does not wish that the criminal proceedings against the petitioners should continue.

¶36

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.

¶37

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.

¶38

7.In Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Another [2012

¶39

(10)SCC 303], the Apex Court has crystalised the position

¶40

Crl. M.C. No. 3377 of 2016

¶41

-3-

¶42

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 having an overwhelming and predominatingly civil flavour, particularly offences arising from commercial, financial,

¶43

Crl. M.C. No. 3377 of 2016

¶44

-4-

¶45

mercantile, civil, partnership, or such like transactions. 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

¶46

Kurup and Others [AIR 2016 SC 2452].

¶47

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 respondent No.1 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 1^st respondent to great oppression and prejudice.

¶48

Crl. M.C. No. 3377 of 2016

¶49

-5-

¶50

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.

¶51

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. 733 of 2014 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-1 Aluva are quashed.

¶52

Sd/-

¶53

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN, V. JUDGE

¶54

SKS

¶55

//TRUE COPY//

¶56

P.A. TO JUDGE

Shiju v. Nisamudheen

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shiju v. Nisamudheen

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

Abbas Vs State of Kerala

Suresh M.K. Vs State Ofkerala

Shameem @ Shameemudheen Vs State of Kerala