Allowed

Noufal v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC29 Nov 2016Crl.MC/4967/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a petition under Section 482 CrPC to quash criminal proceedings for unlawful assembly and assault after an amicable settlement, the court held that proceedings should be quashed to secure the ends of justice and prevent abuse of process, despite the Public Prosecutor's reservations.

What did the court decide?

FIR and all proceedings against petitioners, who are Accused Nos. 1 to 3 and 7, 8, 10 and 11, are quashed.

Noufal 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
TUESDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2016/8TH AGRAHAYANA, 1938
Crl.MC.No. 4967 of 2016 () ---------------------------
CRIME NO. 289/2015 OF KADAKKAVOOR POLICE STATION
PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 TO 3, 7,8,10 & 11: -----------------------------------------
1. NOUFAL AGED 20 YEARS, S/O.SALIM, FATHIMA MANZIL, NEAR KOCHU PALLI, VAKKOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.
2. HASIF NIZAMUDEEN, AGED 19 YEARS S/O.NIZAMUDEEN, C.V.HOUSE, PUTHEN NADA KSHETHRAM, VAKKOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.
3. MOHAMMED IQBAL AGED 22 YEARS, S/O.SHAJAHAN, KOONAN VILA VEEDU, VAKKOM, THIRUVANANTHAPRUAM DISTRICT.
4. THOUFEEK HABEEB, VELIYAZHIKOM VEEDU, VAKKOM THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.
5. ASHIK MOHAMMED @ ASHIQUE VIN AGED 21 YEARS, S/O.NIZAMUDEE, C.V.HOUSE, PUTHENNADA KSHETHRAM, VAKKOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.
6. SUBIYAN AGED 20 YEARS, S/O.NAZEEM, C.V.HOUSE, PUTHENNADA KSHETHRAM, VAKKOM, THIRUVANANTHAPRUAM DISTRICT.
7. SAJIN @ CHAKKARA AGED 19 YEARS, S/O.SANTHOSH, USHASS, SANTHOSH BHAVAN, MOTTAMOODU, VAKKOM, THIRUVAANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SRI.M.DINESH
RESPONDENTS/STATE, DE-FACTO COMPLAINANT: ------------------------------------------
1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSEUCTOR, HIGH COUT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM PIN 682 031.

¶4

2. PRABHU DEV, AGED 24 YEARS

¶5

S/O.MANI, SINDHU BHAVAN, PULIVILAKOM, VAKKOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT - 695 001.

¶6

R2 BY ADV. SRI.G.RANJU MOHAN BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.AMJAD ALI

¶7

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

¶8

Crl.MC.No. 4967 of 2016 ()

¶9

APPENDIX

¶10

PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES ----------------------ANNEXURE A1 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE F.I.R IN CRIME NO.289/2015 OF KADAKKAVOOR POLICE STATION ANNEUXRE A2 NOTARIZED AFFIDAVIT OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 16.7.2016

¶11

RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES

NIL

/TRUE COPY/

VPS PS TO JUDGE

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V, J

¶16

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

¶17

Crl.M.C. No.4967 of 2016

¶18

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

¶19

Dated this the 29^th day of November, 2016

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

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.

¶22

2.The petitioners herein are the accused Nos.1 to 3, 7, 8, 10

¶23

and 11 in Crime No.289 of 2015 of Kadakkavoor Police Station. They stand indicted under sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 324, 323 and 308 of the IPC. Respondent No.2 is the victim.

¶24

3.The prosecution allegation is that on 13.3.2015 at 8.15 p.m, the petitioners herein along with accused Nos. 4 to 6 and 9 formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and in prosecution of their common object wrongfully restrained the 2^nd respondent and thereafter assaulted him

¶25

Crl.M.C.4967/2016 2

¶26

causing injuries.

¶27

4.Heard the submissions advanced.

¶28

5.The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the 2^nd respondent has absolved the petitioners and the other accused of all wrong doing . In so far as accused No 4 to 6 and 9 is concerned, it is submitted that an application seeking to implead themselves in this petition was filed, however, the same was not numbered. In the said circumstances steps have been taken to file a separate petition to quash the proceedings against them is the submission .

¶29

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 affidavit filed by him 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

¶30

Crl.M.C.4967/2016 3

¶31

to promote peace and harmony.

¶32

7.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.

¶33

However, it is submitted that no other cases are reported against the petitioners.

¶34

8.I have considered the submissions .

¶35

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

¶36

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 follows :

¶37

“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

¶38

Crl.M.C.4967/2016

¶39

¶40

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.”

¶41

10.The aforesaid dictum stands reiterated by the Apex Court

¶42

in Narinder singh v. State of Punjab. (2014) 6 SCC 466, the pertinent observations which are as under:

¶43

XXXXXXXXXXXX

¶44

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:

¶45

(i) ends of justice, or

¶46

(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.

¶47

xxxxxxx

¶48

xxxxxxx

¶49

11.The offence committed by the petitioners cannot be said

¶50

to be grave and serious having ingredients of extreme mental depravity. It also does not appear that the offence

¶51

Crl.M.C.4967/2016

¶52

¶53

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.

¶54

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.

¶55

In the result, this petition will stand allowed. AnnexureA1 FIR in Crime No.289 of 2015 of Kadakkavoor Police Station and all proceedings pursuant thereto against the petitioners herein , who are the accused No 1 to 3 and 7, 8 , 10 and 11 are quashed.

¶56

Sd/RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V. JUDGE

¶57

vps

Noufal v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Noufal 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

Mukesh Vs State of Kerala

Kalesh Vs State of Kerala