Allowed

Sabid Hassan @ Alikutty v. S.I. of Police, Perumpetty Police Station

Kerala HC8 Nov 2016Crl.MC/4503/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment quashes pending criminal proceedings instituted against the petitioner for offenses under Sections 451 and 323 IPC. The Court invoked its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC, observing that the dispute was amicably resolved and quashing would secure ends of justice.

What did the court decide?

The pending criminal proceedings and the final report_PENDING as LP No. 52 of 2013 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of 1st Class, Thiruvalla are quashed.

Sabid Hassan @ Alikutty Vs S.I. of Police, Perumpetty Police… — 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

TUESDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2016/17TH KARTHIKA, 1938

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 4503 of 2015 ()

¶6

AGAINST LP 52/2013 of J.M.F.C.,THIRUVALLA CRIME NO. 99/2009 OF PERUMPETTY POLICE STATION , PATHANAMTITTA

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED:

¶8

SABID HASSAN @ ALIKUTTY

¶9

S/O.HASSAN KUTTY, RESIDING AT THADATHEL HOUSE, KOTTANGAL, (P.O), MALLAPPALLY TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. PIN - 686 547.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.R.O.MUHAMED SHEMEEM

¶11

RESPONDENT(S)/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:

¶12

1. S.I. OF POLICE, PERUMPETTY POLICE STATION PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN - 689 592.

¶13

2. SURENDRAN @ SUNIL

¶14

S/O.PURUSHOTHAMAN, RESIDING AT IDAYADIL HOUSE, THUDIPARA, KOTTANGEL VILLAGE, KOTTANGEL (P.O) MALLAPPILLY TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. PIN - 686 547.

¶15

3. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶16

R2 BY ADV. SRI.E.A.HARIS

¶17

R1 & 3 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. AMJAD ALI.

¶18

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08-11-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

Crl.MC.No. 4503 of 2015 () ---------------------------

¶20

APPENDIX

¶21

PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:

¶22

ANNEXURE-NO. 1: TRUE COPY OF FIR IN CRIME NO.99/2009 DATED 18.6.2009 OF ERUMPETTY POLICE STATION.

¶23

ANNEXURE-NO. 2: CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO.99/2009 PENDING AS LP NO.52/2013 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, THIRUVALLA.

¶24

AFFIDAVIT OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT PRODUCED ALONG WITH MEMO DATED 8.11.16

¶25

RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES: NIL

TRUE COPY

P.A.TO JUDGE.

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V., J

¶30

¶31

Crl.M.C. No. 4503 of 2015

¶32

- - - - Dated 8^th November, 2016

¶33

¶34

ORDER

¶35

1.This petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ( hereinafter referred to as the Code ) with a prayer to invoke the extraordinary inherent powers and to quash the pending criminal proceedings.

¶36

2.The petitioner is the accused in L.P.No.52 of 2013 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of 1^st Class, Thiruvalla. He stands indicted for having committed offences punishable under Sections 451 and 323 of the IPC.

¶37

3.The prosecution allegation is that on 14.06.2009 at 11.45 pm, the petitioner along with three others committed house trespass and thereafter assaulted the 2^nd respondent. After investigation final report was laid arraying the petitioner as the sole accused .

¶38

4.Heard the submissions advanced.

¶39

5.The learned counsel appearing for the 2^nd respondent

¶40

Crl.M.C. No.4503 of 2015 -2-

¶41

submits that the dispute between the parties has been amicably resolved. Attention of this Court is invited to the affidavit filed by him to buttress his submission. It is urged that the dispute is purely personal in nature and would not affect public peace or tranquility. Summing up it is prayed that the criminal proceedings be terminated to promote peace and harmony.

¶42

6.The learned Public Prosecutor after getting instructions has expressed his reservations in the matter of quashing the proceedings on the basis of settlement. It is submitted that the invocation of powers under Section 482 of the Code in a case of this nature is not warranted. However, it is submitted that no other cases are reported against the petitioner.

¶43

7.I have considered the submissions .

¶44

8.In Gian singh v. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303

¶45

Apex Court has laid down that in appropriate cases, the

¶46

Crl.M.C. No.4503 of 2015

¶47

-3-

¶48

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. It was observed as follows :

¶49

“61. In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceedings or continuation of criminal proceedings would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and the wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in the affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceedings.”

¶50

9.The aforesaid dictum stands reiterated by the Apex Court

¶51

in Narinder singh v. State of Punjab. (2014) 6 SCC

¶52

466, the pertinent observations which are as under:

¶53

XXXXXXXXXXXX

¶54

29.2. When the parties have reached the settlement and on that basis petition for quashing the criminal proceedings is filed, the guiding factor in such cases would be to secure:

¶55

Crl.M.C. No.4503 of 2015 -4-

¶56

(i) ends of justice, or

¶57

(ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any court. While exercising the power the High Court is to form an opinion on either of the aforesaid two objectives.

¶58

xxxxxxx

¶59

xxxxxxx

¶60

10.The offence committed by the petitioner cannot be said to be grave and serious having ingredients of extreme mental depravity. It also does not appear that the offence in this case will have a serious impact on the society. It is felt that quashing of proceedings on account of compromise would bring about peace and secure the ends of justice. Even otherwise, persisting with the prosecution would be nothing but a waste of time as the prospects of conviction would be bleak.

¶61

11.Having considered all the relevant circumstances, I am of the considered view that this Court will be well justified in invoking its extra ordinary powers under Section 482 of the Code to quash the proceedings.

¶62

Crl.M.C. No.4503 of 2015 -5-

¶63

In the result, this petition will stand allowed.

¶64

Annexure-2 final report and all proceedings pursuant thereto against the petitioner now pending as L.P.No.52 of 2013 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of 1^st Class, Thiruvalla are quashed.

¶65

Sd/-

¶66

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V., JUDGE

¶67

kp/-10.11.16

Sabid Hassan @ Alikutty v. S.I. of Police, Perumpetty Police Station

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sabid Hassan @ Alikutty v. S.I. of Police, Perumpetty Police Station

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

Savithri Vijayan Vs State of Kerala

V.K.Vivek Vs State of Kerala

Kalader Vs State of Kerala

Pavanan Vs Hari Shankar.I.P.S.

Andul Salam Palakkavalappil Vs State of Kerala

Favas N.K. Vs the State of Kerala