Allowed

Jalaludheen v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC27 Jul 2016Crl.MC/4177/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala quashed criminal proceedings against five accused persons who were charged with offences under the IPC. The petition was allowed after the court found that the parties had reached a voluntary settlement and the offences were personal in nature.

What did the court decide?

All further proceedings against the petitioners, accused Nos. 1 to 5 in Crime No. 1389 of 2015, were quashed.

Jalaludheen 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

WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF JULY 2016/5TH SRAVANA, 1938

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 4177 of 2016

¶6

CRIME NO. 1389/2015 OF CHAVAKKAD POLICE STATION, THRISSUR

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED:

¶8

1. JALALUDHEEN, AGED 38 YEARS, S/O.HAMEED, PUNNAKACHAL, KADAPPURAM, CHAVAKKAD, THRISSUR, KERALA.

¶9

2. SHIBILI, AGED 21 YEARS, S/O.SHAHUDHEEN, AZHIKKAL HOUSE, PUNNAKACHAL, KADAPPURAM, CHAVAKKAD, THRISSUR, KERALA.

¶10

3. ISMAIL, AGED 19 YEARS, S/O.ALI, KAKKASHESRI HOUSE, PUNNAKACHAL, KADAPPURAM, CHAVAKKAD, THRISSUR, KERALA.

¶11

4. NADIRSHAH, AGED 22 YEARS, S/O.ABBU SAKKAR, VATTEKKAD, KADAPPURAM, CHAVAKKAD, THRISSUR, KERALA. 5. ANAS (MINOR), AGED 17 YEARS, S/O.ALI PUNNAKACHAL, KADAPPURAM, CHAVAKKAD, THRISSUR, KERALA, REPRESENTED BY FATHER ALI PUNNAKACHAL, KADAPPURAM, CHAVAKKAD, THRISSUR.

¶12

BY ADV. SRI.N.L.BITTO

¶13

RESPONDENT(S)/STATE OF KERALA:

¶14

1. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHAVAKKAD POLICE STATION THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM-682031.

.....2/-

..2..

Crl.MC.No. 4177 of 2016

¶19

2. AFSAR N.A., AGED 20 YEARS, S/O.ABDUMON NALAKATH HOUSE, VATTEKKAD DESOM, KADAPPURAM VILLAGE, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT, KERALA-680001.

¶20

3. ICHALU @ SHIYAS

¶21

AGED 20 YEARS, S/O.UMMER, KALAPARAMBIL HOUSE, VATTEKKAD DESOM, KADAPPURAM VILLAGE, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT, KERALA-682001.

¶22

4. MURSHID P.A.,

¶23

AGED 20 YEARS, S/O.P.K.ABDUL AZEES, PANNIKKAVETTIL HOUSE, VATTEKKAD DESOM, KADAPPURAM VILLAGE, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT, KERALA-682001.

¶24

5. SALIH KAMARUDHEEN P.,

¶25

AGED 18 YEARS, S/O.KAMARUDHEEN, PANNIKAVETTIL HOUSE, VATTEKKAD DESOM, KADAPPURAM VILLAGE, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT, KERALA-680001.

¶26

R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.ROY THOMAS BY ADVS. SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR) SRI.N.U.HARIKRISHNA

¶27

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27-07-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶28

¶29

Crl.MC.No. 4177 of 2016

¶30

APPENDIX

¶31

PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES

¶32

ANNEXURE 1 TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME 1389/2015 OF THE CHAVAKKAD POLICE STATION. ANNEXURE II ORIGINAL OF THE AFFIDAVIT OF THE R2 DT.7-1-2016. ANNEXURE III ORIGINAL OF THE AFFIDAVIT OF R3 DT.7-1-2016. ANNEXURE IV ORIGINAL OF THE AFFIDAVIT OF R4 DT.7-1-2016. ANNEXURE V ORIGINAL OF THE AFFIDAVIT OF R5 DT.7-1-2016. RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES

NIL.

/ TRUE COPY /

P.S. TO JUDGE

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V, J

¶38

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

¶39

Crl.M.C. No.4177 of 2016

¶40

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

¶41

Dated this the 27^th day of July, 2016

¶42

O R D E R

¶43

1.The petitioners herein are accused Nos.1 to 5 in Crime No.1389 of 2015 of Chavakkad Police Station registered at the instance of the 2^nd respondent alleging offence punishable under sections 294, 143, 147, 148, 341, 323, 324 read with 149 of the IPC.

¶44

2.The prosecution allegation is that on 7.9.2015 at 10.00 p.m., the petitioners assaulted respondents 2 to 5 and thus committed the offence.

¶45

3.I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, the respondents and the learned public prosecutor.

¶46

4.It is submitted that the parties have reached an out of court settlement and there is no acrimony between them

¶47

Crl.M.C.4177/2016 2

¶48

at present. All the disputes have been amicably resolved and they desire to live in peace and harmony. Respondents 2 to 5 have sworn to separate affidavits wherein they assert that they have no objection in terminating the proceedings.

¶49

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

¶50

6.It is thus borne out from the submissions made at the bar

¶51

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.

¶52

In Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 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 end to the criminal proceedings. This view was reiterated in

¶53

Crl.M.C.4177/2016

¶54

¶55

Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2014) 6 SCC 466) and Yogendra Yadav and Others v. State of

¶56

Jharkhand and Another (2014 (9) SCC 653).

¶57

After having heard the submissions of the learned Counsel

¶58

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.

¶59

In the result, this petition is allowed. All further proceedings against the petitioners, who are accused

¶60

Crl.M.C.4177/2016

¶61

¶62

Nos.1 to 5 in Crime No.1389 of 2015 of Chavakkad Police

¶63

Station, shall stand quashed.

¶64

Sd/RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V. JUDGE

¶65