Allowed

Rahim v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC4 Aug 2016Crl.MC/3836/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed an application under Section 482 CrPC to quash criminal proceedings against five petitioners for offences under the IPC. The court held that the charges were personal in nature, affected no public interest, and a settlement had been reached between the victims and accused, justifying quashing.

What did the court decide?

All further proceedings against the petitioners in S.C.No.1046 of 2014 before the Assistant Sessions Court, Kozhikode, were quashed.

Rahim 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

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

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 3836 of 2016

¶6

SC 1046/2014 OF ASSISTANT SESSIONS COSURT, KOZHIKODE

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED NO.1 TO 5:

¶8

1. RAHIM, AGED 27 YEARS, S/O. SIYALI, PADACHERICHALIL HOUSE, VAVAD AMSOM, OOROPARAMBU.

¶9

2. JUNAID P.C. AGED 22 YEARS, S/O. SIYALI, PADACHERICHALIL HOUSE, VAVAD AMSOM, OOROPARAMBU.

¶10

3. JAFFER, AGED 29 YEARS, S/O. MUHAMMED, EELAVANAPARAMBATH HOUOSE, VAVAD AMSOM, UROPARAMBU.

¶11

4. THANDORA SIDDIQUE AGED 28 YEARS, S/O. HUSSAIN, VAVAD AMSOM, UROPARAMBU.

¶12

5. ABDUL SAMAD, AGED 28 YEARS, S/O. MUHAMMED, ELAVANA PARAMBATH HOUSE, VAVAD AMSOM, UROPARAMBU.

¶13

BY ADV. SRI.V.N.RAMESAN NAMBISAN

¶14

RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANTS :

¶15

1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031.

¶16

2. ABDUL SALEEM, AGED 26 YEARS, S/O. SEETHI HAJI, UROOM KANDATHIL HOUSE, PATTINIKKARA, PUTHOOR AMSOM, THAMARASSERY TALUK, KOZHIKODE-673 104. 3. SHAFEEQUE, AGED 23 YEARS, S/O. MUHAMMED, KAITHAPARAMBIL HOUSE, MANIPURAM P.O., PATTINIKKARA, KOZHIKODE-673 572.

¶17

R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.PUSHPALATHA M.K. R2,3 BY ADV. SRI.PHILJO VARUGHESE PHILIPS

¶18

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

¶19

¶20

Crl.MC.No. 3836 of 2016

¶21

APPENDIX

¶22

PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES

¶23

ANNEXURE 1 COPY OF FINAL REPORT DTD.27.4.2014 IN SC NO.1046 OF 2014 ON THE FILE OF THE ASSISTANT SESSIONS COURT, KOZHIKODE. ANNEXURE 2 COPY OF AFFIDAVIT DTD.25.5.2016 SWORN TO BY RESPONDENTS 2 AND 3.

¶24

RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES

¶25

NIL. / TRUE COPY / P.S. TO JUDGE

¶26

¶27

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V, J

¶28

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

¶29

Crl.M.C. No.3836 of 2016

¶30

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

¶31

Dated this the 4^th day of August, 2016

¶32

O R D E R

¶33

1.The petitioners are the accused Nos.1 to 5 in S.C.No.1046 of 2014 on the file of the Assistant Sessions Court, Kozhikode. They are proceeded against for having committed offence punishable under sections 143, 147, 341, 324, 323, 326, 506, 308 read with 149 of the IPC. Respondents 2 and 3 are the victims.

¶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.3836/2016 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 Nos.2 & 3 have filed separate affidavits wherein they assert that they have no objection in terminating the proceedings.

¶39

5.The gist of the allegation is that on 16.1.2014 at 3.30 p.m., the petitioners assaulted the respondents 2 and 3

¶40

Crl.M.C.3836/2016 3

¶41

with 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 victims have sworn to separate affidavits in which they assert that they have 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 of conviction is remote and bleak. It can only result in

¶46

Crl.M.C.3836/2016

¶47

¶48

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.

¶49

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.

¶50

In the result, this petition is allowed. All further proceedings against the petitioners, who are the accused Nos.1 to 5 in S.C.No.1046 of 2014 on the file of the Assistant Sessions Court, Kozhikode, shall stand quashed.

¶51

Sd/RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V. JUDGE

¶52

vps

Rahim v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rahim 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

Nihal Vs State of Kerala