Allowed

M.T.P.Ansar v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC1 Aug 2016Crl.MC/3731/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Kerala allowed a criminal miscellaneous petition to quash proceedings. The court held that offences were personal in nature and parties had amicably settled disputes voluntarily. Quashing would serve community interests and prevent further oppression.

What did the court decide?

All further proceedings against the petitioners, accused Nos. 1 to 6 in C.C.No.819 of 2013, shall stand quashed.

M.T.P.Ansar 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

MONDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF AUGUST 2016/10TH SRAVANA, 1938

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 3731 of 2016 () ---------------------------

¶6

CC 819/2013 of JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-I, HOSDRUG CRIME NO. 561/2012 OF CHANDERA POLICE STATION, KASARGOD DISTRICT

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED 1 TO 6:

¶8

1. M.T.P.ANSAR

¶9

AGED 23 YEARS, S/O.M.V.AHAMMAD, RESIDING AT KOOLERI, THRIKARIPPUR, NORTH THRIKARIPPUR VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.

¶10

2. MUHAMMAD JABIR M.

¶11

AGED 29 YEARS, S/O.ABDUL KHADER, RESIDING AT MOOPPANTAKATHU HOUSE, THANKAYAM, SOUTH THRIKARIPPUR VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.

¶12

3. NISSAR T.

¶13

AGED 29 YEARS, S/O.MOIDEENKUTTY M.T.P., RESIDING AT THELAPPURATH HOUSE, THANKAYAM, NORTH THRIKARIPPUR VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.

¶14

4. MUHAMMED RASHID

¶15

AGED 27 YEARS, S/O.ABDUL RAHIMAN, RESIDING AT RAMLATH MANZIL, KAKKUNNAM, NOW RESIDING AT VELLAP, AYITTY ROAD, SOUTH THRIKARIPPUR VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.

¶16

5. SHEFEEQUE K.

¶17

AGED 34 YEARS, S/O.MARIYABI, RESIDING AT ANCHANGADI, THANKAYAM, NORTH THRIKARIPPUR VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.

¶18

Crl.MC.No. 3731 of 2016 ()

¶19

6. ABDUL VAHAB A.G. AGED 33 YEARS, S/O.ABOOBACKER E.V., RESIDING AT A.G.HOUSE, CHOVVERI, NORTH THRIKARIPPUR VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.

¶20

BY ADV. SRI.T.MADHU

¶21

RESPONDENT(S)/STATE:

¶22

1. THE STATE OF KERALA

¶23

THROUGH THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, CHANDERA POLICE STATION, KASARAGOD DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.682031.

¶24

2. SURESHAN K.V.

¶25

AGED 46 YEARS, S/O.KUNHIRAMAN, RESIDING AT KALLAMVALLI HOUSE, KAROLAM, SOUTH TRIKARIPUR VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.671311.

¶26

3. BASKARAN K.

¶27

AGED 62 YEARS, S/O.KUNHIRAMAN, RESIDING AT KALLAMVALLI HOUSE, KAROLAM, SOUTH TRIKARIPUR VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.671311.

¶28

4. KANESH K.

¶29

AGED 38 YEARS, S/O.KUNHIKRISHNAN, RESIDING AT KUTTOTH HOUSE, KUKANAM, SOUTH TRIKARIPUR VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.671311.

¶30

5. MADHU T.V.

¶31

AGED 39 YEARS, S/O.AMBU, RESIDING AT THAYATH VALAPPIL HOUSE, VALVAKKAD, SOUTH TRIKARIPUR VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.671311.

¶32

R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.AMJAD ALI R2 TO R5 BY ADV. SMT.G.SANGEETHA

¶33

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01-08-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶34

¶35

Crl.MC.No. 3731 of 2016 ()

¶36

APPENDIX

¶37

PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES :

¶38

ANNEXURE A1:	THE NO.5	TRUE CERTIFIED 61/2012 OF CHAN	COPY OF THE DERA POLICE	FIR IN CRIME STATION.
ANNEXURE A2:	THE CRIM	TRUE CERTIFIED E NO.561/2012 O	COPY OF THE F CHANDERA	FINAL REPORT IN POLICE STATION.
ANNEXURE A3:	THE 2ND	AFFIDAVIT DATED RESPONDENT.	31.07.2015	SWORN IN BY THE
ANNEXURE A4:	THE 3RD	AFFIDAVIT DATED RESPONDENT.	31.07.2015	SWORN IN BY THE
ANNEXURE A5:	THE 4TH	AFFIDAVIT DATED RESPONDENT.	31.07.2015	SWORN IN BY THE
ANNEXURE A6:	THE 5TH	AFFIDAVIT DATED RESPONDENT.	31.07.2015	SWORN IN BY THE
ANNEXURE A7:	THE EVID POLI	TRUE CERTIFIED ENCE IN CRIME N CE STATION.	COPY OF THE O.561/2012	MEMO OF OF CHANDERA
RESPONDENT(S)'	EXHIB	ITS :	NIL.

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V, J

¶43

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

¶44

Crl.M.C. No.3731 of 2016

¶45

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

¶46

Dated this the 1^st day of August, 2016

¶47

O R D E R

¶48

The petitioners herein are accused Nos.1 to 6 in

¶49

C.C.No.819 of 2013 on the files of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class Court-I, Hosdurg. They are charged for having committed offence punishable under sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 324, 326 read with 149 of the IPC. Respondents 3 to 5 are the victims.

¶50

2.The prosecution allegation is that on 2.8.2012 at 12.15 a.m., the petitioners formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and assaulted respondents 2 to 5 with sticks and other weapons and caused injuries.

¶51

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

¶52

4.It is submitted that the parties have reached an out of

¶53

Crl.M.C.3731/2016 2

¶54

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. Respondents 2, 3, 4 and 5 have sworn to separate affidavits wherein they assert that they have no objection in terminating the proceedings.

¶55

5.The learned Public Prosecutor, on instructions, submits that the petitioners are not persons with criminal antecedents.

¶56

6.It is thus borne out from the submissions made at the bar that the parties have amicably settled their disputes by their own free will and without any kind of pressure, influence or coercion. The compromise, it is felt, is voluntarily and genuine and can be acted upon.

¶57

In Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC

¶58

303), Apex Court has held 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

¶59

Crl.M.C.3731/2016

¶60

¶61

end to the criminal proceedings. This view was reiterated in Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2014) 6 SCC 466) and Yogendra Yadav and Others v. State of Jharkhand and Another ( 2014 (9) SCC 653).

¶62

8.After having heard the submissions of the learned Counsel and on perusing the records, it appears that the offences are 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 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.

¶63

In the result, this petition is allowed. All further

¶64

Crl.M.C.3731/2016

¶65

¶66

proceedings against the petitioners, who are accused Nos.1 to 6 in C.C.No.819 of 2013 on the files of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class Court-I, Hosdurg shall stand quashed.

¶67

Sd/RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V. JUDGE

¶68

vps

M.T.P.Ansar v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.T.P.Ansar 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

Ashraf Vs State of Kerala

K.P.Ismayil Vs State of Kerala

Raveendran T I Vs the Range Forest Officer

Alli, W/O.Mundengattu Bahuleyan Vs State of Kerala

Jayaprakash Vs State of Kerala

M.K.Muhammed Ali Vs M.K.Sayed