Allowed

Muhammed Khalid Ansar @ Ansar v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC26 May 2016Crl.MC/52/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court allowed a petition to quash criminal charges under Section 482 CrPC. The Court held that since the dispute was private and amicably settled without coercion, continuing proceedings would be an abuse of process contrary to justice.

What did the court decide?

The petition is allowed; the final report and all further proceedings in C.C. No. 551 of 2013 are quashed.

Muhammed Khalid Ansar @ Ansar 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

THURSDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF MAY 2016/5TH JYAISHTA, 1938

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 52 of 2016

¶6

CC.551/2013 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, MANNARKAD CRIME NO. 562/2012 OF NATTUKAL POLICE STATION , PALAKKAD

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED:

¶8

1. MUHAMMED KHALID ANSAR @ ANSAR, AGED 26 YEARS, S/O.ABUBACKER, PANANGADAN HOUSE, ATHANICKAL,

¶9

KARKIDAMKUNNU PO, MANNARKKAD, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

¶10

2. SHAMSUDHEEN, AGED 27 YEARS,

¶11

S/O.BASHEER, PERUMBAYIL HOUSE, MOZHIMATTOM,

¶12

KARKIDAMKUNNU PO, MANNARKKAD, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

¶13

3. LOOKMANUL HAKKIM @ LALU, AGED 31 YEARS, S/O.ABDUL RAHIMAN, NAITHAKODAN HOUSE, KANAMCODE, KARKIDAMKUNNU PO, MANNARKKAD, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

¶14

BY ADV. SRI.P.JAYARAM

¶15

RESPONDENT(S):

¶16

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

¶17

2. CHANDRABABU, AGED 27 YEARS, S/O.RAVI, VENGOORKALATHIL HOUSE, KOLAPARAMBU, KARKIDAMKUNNU PO, MANNARKKAD, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN-678 605.

¶18

R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.SAREENA GEORGE R2 BY ADV. SRI.A.HAROON RASHEED

¶19

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26-05-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

¶21

Crl.MC.No. 52 of 2016

¶22

APPENDIX

¶23

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶24

ANNEXURE A1 : CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIRST INFORMATION REPORT AND FIRST INFORMATION STATEMENT IN CRIME NO.562/2012, NATTUKAL POLICE STATION.

¶25

ANNEXURE A2 :CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT/CHARGE SHEET IN CRIME NO.562/2012 NATTUKAL POLICE STATION/CC NO.551/2013, JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE, MANNARKKAD.

¶26

ANNEXURE A3 :CERTIFIED COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF EVIDENCE IN CRIME NO.562/2012 NATTUKAL POLICE STATION/CC NO.551/2013, JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE, MANNARKKAD.

¶27

ANNEXURE A4 : AFFIDAVIT DT 31-10-2015 SWORN TO AND EXECUTED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶28

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS

NIL.

/ TRUE COPY /

P.S. TO JUDGE

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V., J

¶34

¶35

Crl.M.C. No. 52 of 2016

¶36

- - - - Dated 26^th May, 2016

¶37

¶38

ORDER

¶39

This petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (herein after referred to as “the Code”) seeking invocation of powers of this Court to quash the criminal proceedings in C. C. No. 551 of 2013 on the ground that the matter has been settled between the parties.

¶40

The petitioners herein are accused Nos. 1 to 3 in Crime No. 562 of 2012 of Nattukal Police Station. The aforesaid crime has been registered against the petitioners at the instance of the 2^nd respondent herein alleging offences punishable under Sections 341 and 326 read with Section 34 of the IPC.

¶41

After completion of the investigation, final report was laid before the jurisdictional Magistrate and the case is

¶42

now pending as C. C. No. 551 of 2013 on the files of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Mannarkad. During the

¶43

Crl.M.C. No. 52 of 2016 -2-

¶44

pendency of the proceedings the parties have entered into a settlement and they have amicably resolved the disputes.

¶45

The learned Public Prosecutor on instructions submitted that the 2^nd petitioner herein is involved in another crime registered for offence under Section 308 of the IPC registered in the year 2012. In so far as petitioners 1 and 3 are concerned no criminal antecedents are reported.

¶46

I have gone through the allegations in the final report. The overt act is specifically directed as against the third petitioner herein and the 1^st and 2^nd petitioners are alleged to have wrongfully restrained the 2^nd respondent.

¶47

It is thus borne out from the submissions made at

¶48

the bar that the parties have amicably settled their disputes with 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. The law with regard to the settlement of criminal disputes on the strength of an amicable resolution of the disputes between the parties is no more res integra .

¶49

Crl.M.C. No. 52 of 2016 -3-

¶50

In Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012 (10)

¶51

SCC 303), 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. This view was reiterated in Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2014 (6) SCC 466) and Yogendra Yadav and Others v State of Jharkhand and Another (2014 (9) SCC 653).

¶52

It was held that the inherent power is of wide

¶53

plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz; (i) to secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court. It was held that certain categories of cases involving heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim's family and the offender have settled the dispute as those offences are not private in nature and have serious impact on society. But those cases where the wrong is

¶54

Crl.M.C. No. 52 of 2016 -4-

¶55

basically private or personal in nature and those in which the parties have resolved their entire dispute could fittingly be quashed by this Court taking into account the compromise between the offender and victim. In such cases the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal case would put accused and the de facto complainant to great oppression and prejudice.

¶56

After having anxiously considered the submissions it is felt that it would be unfair and contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceeding. It would only tantamount to abuse of process of law to subject the parties to the ordeal of a protracted criminal proceeding despite the settlement and compromise between the victim and wrongdoer. Settlement will augur well for the interest of the community and will enable the parties to live in peace and harmony.

¶57

Consequently, this petition is allowed and Annexure A2 final report in Crime No. 551 of 2013 of Nattukal Police

¶58

Crl.M.C. No. 52 of 2016 -5-

¶59

Station and all further proceedings in C. C. No. 551 of 2013 on the files of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Mannarkkad shall stand quashed.

¶60

sd/- RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V., JUDGE

¶61

kp/-26.5.16

Muhammed Khalid Ansar @ Ansar v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Muhammed Khalid Ansar @ Ansar 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

Ebi Alphonse Vs Renjith John

Manu Chandran Vs State of Kerala

Dilish John Vs State of Kerala

Alphonse @ Chellappan Vs State of Kerala

Thomas K.G Vs Muhammed Nissar

Ratheesh Vs State of Kerala