Allowed

Nihal v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC4 Aug 2016Crl.MC/3511/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Kerala allowed a criminal miscellaneous petition to quash proceedings against five accused for an assault under IPC sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 308 read with 149. Relying on Supreme Court precedents, the court held that since the offence was personal, disputes were resolved via settlement, and public peace was unaffected, the proceedings were fit to be quashed.

What did the court decide?

All further proceedings against the petitioners, who are accused Nos. 1 to 5 in S.C.No.745 of 2014 on the file of the Additional Sessions Court, Kollam, shall stand quashed.

Nihal Vs State of Kerala — 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

THURSDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF AUGUST 2016/13TH SRAVANA, 1938

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 3511 of 2016 ()

¶6

SC 745/2014 OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT, KOLLAM. CRIME NO.1548/2012 OF ERAVIPURAM POLICE STATION, KOLLAM.

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/1 TO 5TH ACCUSED:

¶8

1. NIHAL, AGED 24 YEARS, S/O.SHIHA, RESIDING AT SHIHA MANZIL, PADINJATTATHIL VEETTIL, NEAR VARKALA GROUND, KALLAMBALLAM VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT.

¶9

2. KURAISHI, AGED 24 YEARS, S/O.FAZALUDEEN, RESIDING AT THATTAM PARAMBU, NEAR KUTTICHIRA, PEROOR CHERRY, KOTTAMKARA VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT.

¶10

3. MUZAFEER, AGED 24 YEARS, RESIDING AT BAITH RANA MANZIL, KOYA ROAD, WEST HILL P.O., KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.

¶11

4. RAHUL, AGED 24 YEARS, S/O.RAGUNADAN, RESIDING AT SREEKRISHNA BHAVAN, KILIKOLLOOR CHERRY, KILIKOLLOOR VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT.

¶12

5. MIDUN, AGED 25 YEARS, S/O.SHISUPALAN, RESIDING AT ASWATHY, NEELASWARAM CHERRY, NEDUVATHOOR VILLAGE, KOTTARAKARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT,

¶13

BY ADV. SRI.V.A.AJIVAS

¶14

--2--

¶15

--2--

¶16

Crl.MC.No. 3511 of 2016 ()

¶17

RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANTS:

¶18

1. STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ERAVIPURAM POLICE STATION, KOLLAM DISTRICT, THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 682 031.

¶19

2. ABI CHANDRAN, AGED 24 YEARS, S/O.BALACHANDRAN, RESIDING AT KOCHU VILLA VEETTIL, NEAR PERROOR TEMPLE, PEROOR CHERRY, KOTTAMKARRA VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT.

¶20

R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.AMJAD ALI

¶21

R2 BY ADV. SMT.M.MANJU (KADAKKAL)

¶22

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04-08-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

mbr/

¶24

Crl.MC.No. 3511 of 2016 ()

¶25

APPENDIX

¶26

PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES: -----------------------ANNEXURE-A: CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO.1548/12 OF ERAVIPURAM POLICE STATION. ANNEXURE-B: TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶27

RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES: NIL -----------------------//TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE mbr/

¶28

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V, J

¶29

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

¶30

Crl.M.C. No.3511 of 2016

¶31

----------------------------------------Dated this the 4^th day of August, 2016

¶32

O R D E R

¶33

1.The petitioners are accused Nos.1 to 5 in S.C.No.745 of 2014 on the file of the Additional Sessions Court, Kollam. They are being prosecuted for having committed offence punishable under sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 308 read with 149 of the IPC. The 2^nd respondent herein is the victim.

¶34

2.The instant petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure banking on the ratio of the Judgment rendered by the Apex Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab ( 2012 (4) KLT 108) and a series of other cases which include Narinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and anr. (2014) 6 SCC 466) and Yogendra Yadav and others V State of Jharkhand

¶35

Crl.M.C.3511/2016 2

¶36

(2014 (9) SCC 653 ) with a prayer to quash the above proceeding.

¶37

3.The sole ground is that the Apex Court in the above judgments have delineated the circumstances and the cases in which inherent powers under Section 482 can be invoked de hors section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for recognizing out of court settlement for the purpose of quashing criminal proceedings. It is prayed that powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure be invoked to quash the criminal proceedings.

¶38

4.It is submitted that the parties have reached an out of court settlement and there is no acrimony between them at present. All the disputes have been amicably resolved and they desire to live in peace and harmony. The respondent No.2 has filed an affidavit wherein he assert that he has no objection in terminating the proceedings.

¶39

5.The gist of the allegation is that on 12.10.2012 at 4.15 p.m., the petitioners assaulted the 2^nd respondent with

¶40

Crl.M.C.3511/2016 3

¶41

dangerous weapons and caused injuries.

¶42

6.The learned Public Prosecutor, on instructions, submits that no other cases of heinous nature are reported against the petitioners.

¶43

7.I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made across the bar and I have also gone through the materials on record.

¶44

8.The victim has sworn to an affidavit in which he asserts that he has no objection in allowing the petition and in quashing the proceedings as all the disputes between the parties have been resolved and the parties are living in peace and harmony.

¶45

It appears to me that the offence is entirely personal in nature and do not affect public peace or tranquility. It is also felt that quashing of proceedings on account of compromise would bring about peace. In a case such as the instant one, even if the prosecution is allowed to continue, it would not serve any purpose as the possibility

¶46

Crl.M.C.3511/2016 4

¶47

of conviction is remote and bleak. It can only result in putting the de facto complainant and the accused to unwanted oppression and prejudice. Settlement will augur well for the interest of the community and will enable the parties to live in peace and harmony.

¶48

10.I am of the view that this Court is well justified in quashing the impugned proceedings as the instant case falls within the matrix of guidelines issued by the Apex Court in Gian Singh ( Supra ) and the other cases referred to above.

¶49

In the result, this petition is allowed. All further proceedings against the petitioners, who are accused Nos.1 to 5 in S.C.No.745 of 2014 on the file of the Additional Sessions Court, Kollam, shall stand quashed.

¶50

Sd/-

¶51

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V.

¶52

JUDGE

¶53

vps

Nihal v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nihal 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

M. Aravindakshan Nair Vs T.K. Radhakrishanan Nair

Ajeer Vs M.K.Sayed

Anil Vs State of Kerala

C.v.Rappai Vs State of Kerala

Jamsheer Vs State of Kerala

Rahim Vs State of Kerala