Allowed

Firoz v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC17 Oct 2016Crl.MC/4835/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal miscellaneous case, the High Court of Kerala, at Ernakulam, considered a plea to quash criminal proceedings under Section 482 CrPC based on a settlement between private parties. The court held that the offences lacked extreme depravity or serious societal impact, and thus granted the prayer, quashing the proceedings.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Misc. Case No. 181 of 2013 and final report pursuant thereto were quashed.

Firoz Vs State of Kerala — Civil Procedure and Limitation | 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 17TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2016/25TH ASWINA, 1938

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 4835 of 2016 ()

¶6

AGAINST CC 181/2013 of J.M.F.C.-I, PERINTHALMANNA DATED CRIME NO. 453/2012 OF PERINTHALMANNA POLICE STATION , MALAPPURAM

¶7

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 TO 7:

¶8

1. FIROZ AGED YEARS, S/O.HAMZA, CHEERAKKATTIL HOUSE, ALIPPARAMBU, ANAMANGAD AMSOM, PERINTHALMANNA TALUK

¶9

2. FAIZAL AGED YEARS, S/O.IBRAHIM, CHEERAKKATTIL HOUSE, ALIPPARAMBU, ANAMANGAD AMSOM, PERINTHALMANNA TALUK

¶10

3. MOOSAKUTTY AGED YEARS, S/O.KUNJIMMU HAJI, KALLUPALAM VEEDU, ANAMANGAD AMSOM, PERINTHALMANNA TALUK

¶11

4. AZEEZ AGED YEARS, S/O.MUHAMMED, KALLUVALEN VEEDU, ANAMANGAD AMSOM, PERINTHALMANNA TALUK

¶12

5. MANZOOR S/O.AZEEZ, KALLUPALAM VEEDU, ANAMANGAD AMSOM, PERINTHALMANNA TALUK

¶13

6. RASHI AGED YEARS, S/O.SHARAFUDEEN, KALLUVALEN VEEDU, ANAMANGAD AMSOM, PERINTHALMANNA TALUK

¶14

7. MOHAMMED FOUSI AGED YEARS, S/O.IBRAHIM, CHEERAKKATTIL HOUSE, ALIPPARAMBU, ANAMANGAD AMSOM, PERINTHALMANNA TALUK

¶15

BY ADV. SRI.K.I.SAGEER

¶16

RESPONDENTS/STATE, COMPLAINANT & INJURED:

¶17

1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, (CRIME NO. 453/2012) PERINTHALMANNA POLICE STATION, PERINTHALMANNA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKUALM, PIN 682031

¶18

2. SURESH S/O.BALAKRISHNAN, VARIYATHODI HOUSE, ANAMANGAD AMSOM, PERINTHALMANNA TALUK, PIN 679322

¶19

3. ABDUL SALAM S/O.ALAVI, KARIKKUPURATH HOUSE, CHETHANAMKURSHI, ANAMANGAD AMSOM, PERINTHALMANNA TALUK, PIN 679322

¶20

R2,3 BY ADV. SRI.K.M.NASARUDHEEN R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. AMJAD ALI

¶21

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17-10-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

Crl.MC.No. 4835 of 2016 () ---------------------------

¶23

APPENDIX

¶24

PETITIONERS' ANNEXURES -----------------------

¶25

ANNEXURE AI A TRUE COPY OF FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO. 453/2012 OF PERINTHALMANA POLICE STATION ANNEXURE A2 A TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT ANNEXURE A3 A TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT

¶26

RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES: NIL -----------------------

TRUE COPY

P.A.TO JUDGE.

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V., J

¶31

¶32

Crl.M.C. No. 4835 of 2016

¶33

- - - - Dated 17^th October, 2016

¶34

¶35

ORDER

¶36

1.The petitioners herein are the accused Nos.1 to 7 in C.C.No.181 of 2013 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of 1^st Class-I, Perinthalmanna. They stand indicted for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 342, 323 and 326 read with Section 149 of the IPC.

¶37

2.This petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'the Code') by the petitioners, banking on the ratio of the Judgment rendered by the Apex Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab ( 2012 (4) KLT 108) with a prayer to quash the above proceeding on the ground of settlement of disputes.

¶38

3.The prosecution allegation is that on 11.4.2012 at 8 am the petitioners formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and assaulted respondents 2 and 3 causing grievous injuries.

¶39

Crl.M.C.No.4835 of 2016 -2-

¶40

4.The respondents 2 and 3 have entered appearance through their counsel and have filed separate affidavits wherein it is stated that they have no subsisting grievance against the petitioners. They assert in the affidavit that they do not wish that the criminal proceedings against the petitioners should continue.

¶41

5.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that in view of the settlement arrived at between the parties, this Court will be justified in quashing the proceedings.

¶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 petitioners.

¶43

7.In Gian Singh (supra) the Apex Court has crystalised the

¶44

Crl.M.C.No.4835 of 2016

¶45

-3-

¶46

position in respect of the powers vested in the High Court under S.482 of the Code, to quash the criminal proceedings. It was held that the power vested in the High Court under Section 482 of the Code, is not limited to quash proceedings within the ambit and scope of Section 320 of the Code. The three - Judge Bench in the above case, clearly expounded, that quashing of criminal proceedings under S.482 of the Code, could also be based on settlements between private parties, and could also on a compromise between the offender and the victim. Only that, the above power did not extend to crimes against the society. It is also relevant to mention, that the jurisdiction vested in the High Court under Section 482 of the Code, for quashing criminal proceedings, was held to be exercisable in criminal cases having an overwhelming and predominatingly civil flavour, particularly offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership, or such like transactions. In all such cases,

¶47

Crl.M.C.No.4835 of 2016

¶48

-4-

¶49

the parties should have resolved their entire dispute by themselves, mutually. Further, guidelines were issued by the Apex Court in Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab [2014 (6) SCC 466] and recently in Rajesh Kamath J. and Others v. Mohana Kurup and Others [AIR 2016 SC

¶50

2452].

¶51

8.I have considered the rival submissions and I have gone through the materials on record. The offence committed by the petitioners cannot be said to be grave and serious having ingredients of extreme mental depravity. It also

¶52

does not appear that the offence in this case will have a serious impact on the society. More over, when the respondents 2 and 3 have settled the matter, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and the continuation of the criminal case against the petitioners would be a futile exercise. It would also put the petitioners and respondents 2 and 3 to great oppression and prejudice.

¶53

Crl.M.C.No.4835 of 2016 -5-

¶54

9.Having considered all the relevant circumstances and 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.

¶55

In the result, this petition will stand allowed. AnnexureA1 final report and all proceedings pursuant thereto against the petitioners now pending as C.C.No.181 of 2013 on the file fo the Judicial Magistrate of 1^st Class-I, Perinthalmanna are quashed.

¶56

Sd/- RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V., JUDGE

¶57

kp/-18.10.16

Firoz v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Firoz 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

Gopinathan Nair Vs State of Kerala

Aboobaker P.K @ Abeek Vs State of Kerala

Yousaf Vs the State of Kerala

Ramla A.K. Vs State of Kerala

Ramla A.K. Vs State of Kerala

Lijin T Vs State of Kerala