Allowed

M.K.Muhammed Ali v. M.K.Sayed

Kerala HC1 Aug 2016Crl.MC/4140/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court of Kerala allowed a criminal miscellaneous petition filed by accused under Section 482 CrPC to quash criminal proceedings for criminal intimidation. The court accepted an affidavit from the victim stating no further dispute remained and the petitioners were allowed to live in peace. Holding the offence personal in nature, the court exercised inherent powers to quash the proceedings

What did the court decide?

All further proceedings against the petitioners in C.C.No.3003 of 2013 of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-I, Hosdurg, shall stand quashed.

M.K.Muhammed Ali Vs M.K.Sayed — 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. 4140 of 2016 ()

¶6

CC.NO. 3003/2013 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-I, HOSDURG CRIME NO. 76/2013 OF CHANDERA POLICE STATION,KASARGOD DISTRICT

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED 1 & 2 :

¶8

1. M.K.MUHAMMED ALI, AGED 52 YEARS, S/O.V.K.MOOSA,

¶9

MADAKKAL KURUPPILAKATH, UDUMBUMTHALA P.O, SOUTH THRIKARIPUR, HOSDURG, KASARAGOD DT.

¶10

2. AJEER, S/O.MUHAMMED ALI, MADAKKAL KURUPPILAKATH, UDUMBUMTHALA P.O, SOUTH THRIKARIPUR, HOSDURG, KASARAGOD DT.

¶11

BY ADVS.SRI.K.R.AVINASH (KUNNATH) SRI.ABDUL RAOOF PALLIPATH

¶12

RESPONDENT(S)/DEFACTO COMPLAINANTS & STATE:

¶13

1. M.K.SAYED, AGED 39 YEARS, S/O.USMAN HAJI, MADAKKAL KURUPPILAKATH, UDUMBUMTHALA P.O, SOUTH THRIKARIPUR, HOSDURG, KASARAGOD -671 315.

¶14

2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER,

¶15

CHANDERA POLICE STATION, THOUGH PUBLIC PORSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM -682 031.

¶16

R1 BY ADV. SRI.C.H.ABDUL RASAC R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. PUSHPALATHA.M.K.

¶17

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION

¶18

ON 01-08-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

sts

¶20

Crl.MC.No. 4140 of 2016 ()

¶21

APPENDIX

¶22

PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES:

¶23

ANNEXURE A1 TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO.76/13 OF CHANDERA POLICE STATION, KASARGOD.

¶24

ANNEXURE A2 TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN IN BY RESPONDENT NO.1

¶25

RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES:

NIL

/TRUE COPY/

P.A.TO JUDGE

sts

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN, V., J.

¶31

Crl.M.C. No.4140 of 2016

¶32

-----------------------------------------Dated this the 1^st day of August, 2016

¶33

O R D E R

¶34

~~~~~~~~

¶35

1.The petitioners herein are the accused Nos. 1 and 2 in

¶36

C.C.No.3003 of 2013 of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-I, Hosdurg. They are charged with for having committed offence punishable under Section 506(i) read with section 34 of the IPC. The 1^st respondent is the victim.

¶37

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 Another [2014) 6 SCC 466] and

¶38

Crl.M.C. No.4140 of 2016

¶39

-2-

¶40

Yogendra Yadav and others V State of Jharkhand

¶41

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

¶42

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 .

¶43

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 1^st respondent has sworn to an affidavit wherein he asserts

¶44

Crl.M.C. No.4140 of 2016

¶45

-3-

¶46

that he has no objection in terminating the proceedings.

¶47

5.The prosecution allegation is that on 10.8.2013 at about 4.00 p.m., the petitioners had criminally intimidated the 1^st respondent and thus committed the offence.

¶48

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

¶49

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

¶50

8.The victim has sworn to an affidavit wherein it is asserted that he has no objection in allowing the petition and in quashing the proceedings as all the disputed between the parties have been resolved and the parties are living in peace and harmony. The pendency of the Criminal proceeding will act as a hindrance to the peace and harmony which prevail between the parties.

¶51

Crl.M.C. No.4140 of 2016

¶52

-4-

¶53

9.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 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.

¶54

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.

¶55

Crl.M.C. No.4140 of 2016

¶56

-5-

¶57

In the result, this petition is allowed. All further proceedings against the petitioners, who are the accused Nos.1 and 2 in C.C.No.3003 of 2013 of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-I, Hosdurg, shall stand quashed.

¶58

Sd/- RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN, V. JUDGE

¶59

Ps/3/8/16

M.K.Muhammed Ali v. M.K.Sayed

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.K.Muhammed Ali v. M.K.Sayed

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.T.P.Ansar Vs the State of Kerala