Allowed

Mukesh v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC29 Nov 2016Crl.MC/4957/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Kr.MC.No.4957 of 2016 allowed petition to quash criminal proceedings under Section 482 CrPC. Court held that since dispute was amicably resolved and offence was not grave, continuing prosecution would be abuse of process and against interests of justice. FIR and proceedings against petitioners quashed.

What did the court decide?

FIR in Crime No.303 of 2015 and all proceedings pursuant thereto against petitioners are quashed.

Mukesh 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

TUESDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2016/8TH AGRAHAYANA, 1938

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 4957 of 2016 ()

¶6

CRIME NO. 303/2015 OF KADAKKAVOOR POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANDAPURAM

¶7

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 TO 3 & 5 TO 8

¶8

1. MUKESH S/O.RAJU, SARASWATHI VILASOM, ANJUTHENGU, KAYIKKARA, VAKKOM VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT

¶9

2. PRABHU DEV, AGED 24 YEARS, S/O.MANI, SINDHU BHAVAN, PULIVILAKOM, VAKKOM VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.

¶10

3. SHIRAS AGED 26 YEARS, S/O.IBRAHIM, UPPU VEEDU, VAKKOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.

¶11

4. GOPEESH AGED 27 YEARS, S/O.GOPINATHAN, THEKKERAL VEEDU, ERALMUKKU, VAKKOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT,

¶12

5. JITHIN AGED 26 YEARS, S/O.HARIDAS, THUNDUVILA VEEDU, NILAKKAMUKKU, KADAKKAVOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT

¶13

6. BINU @ BABU, AGED 26 YEARS, S/O.GOPALAN, PARAVOORKKAZHIKOM,

¶14

MUKKATH VATTOM, VAKKOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.

¶15

7. RAJESH AGED 28 YEARS, S/O.RAJU, SARASWATHI VILASOM, ANJUTHENGU, KAYIKKARA, VAKKOM VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.

¶16

BY ADV. SRI.M.DINESH

¶17

RESPONDENTS/STATE, DE-FACTO COMPLAINANT: ---------------------------------------

¶18

1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, COCHIN-682031. 2. SIBI AGED 20 YEARS, S/O.BAIJU, KOCHUPALLI THEKKATHIL, NEAR KOCHUPALLY, VAKKOM VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT,695001 3. MOHAMMED THOUFEEF @ THOUFEEK HABEEB AGED 18 YEARS, VELYAZHIKAM VEEDU, NEAR KOCHUPALLY, VAKKOM VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT-695001. R2-3 BY ADV. SRI.G.RANJU MOHAN BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.AMJAD ALI

¶19

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29-11-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

Crl.MC.No. 4957 of 2016 ()

¶21

APPENDIX

¶22

PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES

¶23

ANNEXURE A1 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE F.I.R IN CRIME NO 303/2015 OF KADAKKAVOOR POLICE STATION,

¶24

ANNEXURE A2 NOTARIZED AFFIDAVIT OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DTD 16/7/2016. ANNEXURE A3 NOTARIZED AFFIDAVIT OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT DTD 16/7/2016.

¶25

RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES

NIL

/TRUE COPY/

VPS PS TO JUDGE

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V, J

¶30

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

¶31

Crl.M.C. No.4957 of 2016

¶32

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

¶33

Dated this the 29^th day of November, 2016

¶34

O R D E R

¶35

1.This petition is filed under S.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 petitioners herein are the accused Nos.1 to 3 and 5 to 8 in Crime No.303 of 2015 of the Kadakkavoor Police Station. They stand indicted under sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 341, 294 (b), 324, 326 and 308 of the IPC.

¶37

3.The prosecution allegation is that on 13.3.2015 at

¶38

8.30 p.m, the petitioners herein along with the 4^th accused formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and in prosecution of their common object wrongfully restrained respondents 2 and 3 and thereafter assaulted them with

¶39

Crl.M.C.4957/2016 2

¶40

deadly weapons causing injuries.

¶41

4.Heard the submissions advanced.

¶42

5.The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the party respondents have absolved the petitioners and the other accused of all wrong doing . In so far as accused No 4 steps have been taken to file a separate petition to quash the proceedings against him is the submission .

¶43

6.The learned counsel appearing for the party respondents submits that the dispute between the parties has been amicably resolved. Attention of this Court is invited to the affidavits filed by them to buttress their 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.

¶44

7.The learned Public Prosecutor after getting instructions has expressed his reservations in the matter of quashing

¶45

Crl.M.C.4957/2016 3

¶46

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.

¶47

8.I have considered the submissions .

¶48

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

¶49

Apex Court has laid down 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. It was observed as

¶50

follows :

¶51

“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

¶52

Crl.M.C.4957/2016

¶53

¶54

to quash the criminal proceedings.”

¶55

10.The aforesaid dictum stands reiterated by the Apex Court

¶56

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

¶57

466, the pertinent observations which are as under:

¶58

XXXXXXXXXXXX

¶59

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:

¶60

(i) ends of justice, or

¶61

(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.

¶62

xxxxxxx

¶63

xxxxxxx

¶64

11.The offence committed by the petitioners cannot be said

¶65

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

¶66

Crl.M.C.4957/2016

¶67

¶68

of justice. Even otherwise, persisting with the prosecution

¶69

would be nothing but a waste of time as the prospects of conviction would be bleak.

¶70

12.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.

¶71

In the result, this petition will stand allowed. AnnexureA1 FIR in Crime No.303 of 2015 of Kadakkavoor Police Station and all proceedings pursuant thereto against the petitioners , who are the accused Nos. 1 to 3 and 5 to 8 are quashed.

¶72

Sd/-

¶73

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V. JUDGE

¶74

vps

Mukesh v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mukesh 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

Benny Varghese Vs the State of Kerala

Mani Vs State of Kerala

Afsal Kalarikettiparambathu Vs the State of Kerala

Siddque Vs State of Kerala

Noufal Vs State of Kerala

Kalesh Vs State of Kerala