Allowed

Muneer v. Santhosh

Kerala HC26 Oct 2016Crl.MC/3436/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner accused in a crime punishable under various IPC sections filed a petition under Section 482 CrPC to quash proceedings. The High Court allowed the petition, quashing the FIR and all subsequent proceedings against the petitioners, considering the acquittal of co-accused, amicable settlement of the dispute, and lack of serious impact on society.

What did the court decide?

The petition allowed; Annexure-A FIR in Crime No.413 of 2011 of Nadapuram Police Station and all proceedings against the petitioners are quashed.

Muneer Vs Santhosh — 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

WEDNESDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2016/4TH KARTHIKA, 1938

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 3436 of 2016 ()

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN SC 1101/2014 of ADDL. D.C. & SESSIONS COURT - IV, KOZHIKODE DATED

¶7

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN SC 265/2015 of ADDL. D.C. & SESSIONS COURT - IV, KOZHIKODE DATED CRIME NO. 413/2011 OF NADAPURAM POLICE STATION , KOZHIKODE

¶8

PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED NO. 1& 2 :

¶9

MUNEER S/O ABDULLA, AGED 25 YEARS VANATHAM KANDI, HOUSE. CHEKKIADU, PO. VATAKARA. TALUK. 2. MUHAMMAD SHIFAR S/O MOIDU, AGED 25 YEARS POLERI THAZHA KUNI HOUSE. CHEKKIADU, PO. VATAKARA. TALUK

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.ZUBAIR PULIKKOOL

¶11

RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT :

¶12

SANTHOSH S/O NANU, AGED 35 YEARS, MEETHALE KAPPUMMAL, HOUSE. PATHIRAPATTA. PO. VATAKARA, TALUK PIN 673101

¶13

NIDEESH S/O NANU, AGED 27 YEARS NADDUPPARAMBATH, HOUSE. VARIKKOLI PO. VATAKARA, TALUK PIN-673101 3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM PIN 682031 R1-2 BY ADV. SMT.A.P.RUFAIJA R BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,SRI. T.R.RENJITH

¶14

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26-10-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

CONTD...

¶16

:2:

¶17

Crl.MC.No. 3436 of 2016 () ---------------------------

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ----------------------A1 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO.413/2011 OF NADAPURAM POLICE STTATION A2 SWORN AFFIDAVIT OF 1ST RESPONDENT A3 SWORN AFFIDAVIT OF 2ND RESPONDENT RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : NIL -----------------------

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE

SKS

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V., J.

¶24

Crl. M.C. No. 3436 of 2016

¶25

Dated this the 26^th day of October, 2016

¶26

O R D E R

¶27

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.

¶28

2.The petitioners herein are the accused Nos. 1 and 2 in Crime No.413 of 2011 of Nadapuram Police Station. They along with 3 others are proceeded against for having committed offences punishable under Section 143, 147, 148, 341, 326, 308, 427, 153 (A) r/w Section 149 of the IPC.

¶29

3.The prosecution allegation is that on 21.8.2011 at 8.45 p.m., the petitioners formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and after wrongfully restraining respondents 1 and 2 assaulted them with iron rod and caused injuries.

¶30

Crl. M.C. No. 3436 of 2016

¶31

-2-

¶32

4.Investigation was conducted and Annexure-1 final report was laid before Jurisdictional Court. The petitioners were not available for trial as they had absconded. The case as against the accused Nos. 4, 5 and 6 were committed to the Court of Session and was numbered as S.C.No. 492 of 2014. The trial was proceeded with and by Annexure-4, judgment dated 01.01.2016, they were found not guilty and were acquitted of all charges.

¶33

5.It appears that thereafter the disputes between the parties were amicably resolved and it is in the said circumstances that this petition has been preferred to quash the proceedings.

¶34

6.Heard

¶35

7..The learned counsel appearing for the party respondents submits that the disputes between the parties have been amicably resolved. Attention of this Court is invited to the affidavits filed by them to buttress his submission . It is urged that the dispute is purely personal in nature and

¶36

Crl. M.C. No. 3436 of 2016

¶37

-3-

¶38

would not affect public peace or tranquility . Summing up it is prayed that the criminal proceedings be terminated to promote peace and harmony.

¶39

8.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.

¶40

9.I have considered the submissions .

¶41

10.It is evident from Annexure 4 that the co accused have

¶42

been acquitted . Furthermore the disputes have been amicably resolved and the parties are living in peace and harmony . 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

¶43

Crl. M.C. No. 3436 of 2016

¶44

-4-

¶45

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.

¶46

11.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.

¶47

In the result, this petition will stand allowed. Annexure-A FIR in Crime No.413 of 2011 of Nadapuram Police Station

¶48

and all proceedings pursuant thereto against the petitioners are quashed.

¶49

Sd/-

¶50

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V.,

JUDGE

SKS

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE

Muneer v. Santhosh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Muneer v. Santhosh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Abbas Vs State of Kerala

Shiju Vs Nisamudheen

Suresh M.K. Vs State Ofkerala

Edison Kennedy Vs State of Kerala

Fr. Wilson Tharayil Vs the State of Kerala

Shiyad Vs State of Kerala