Allowed

Abdulrahiman P v. State

Kerala HC9 Dec 2016Crl.MC/5295/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a petition under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of criminal proceedings arising from an assault causing injuries and rioting, the High Court allowed the petition. Finding that the dispute was resolved amicably and the offences were not grave, the Court invoked its inherent powers to quash the FIR and subsequent proceedings to secure social peace and the ends of justice.

What did the court decide?

The First Information Report (FIR) in Crime No.569 of 2011 and all subsequent proceedings against the petitioners are quashed.

Abdulrahiman P Vs State — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2016/18TH AGRAHAYANA, 1938

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 5295 of 2016

¶6

CRIME NO. 569/2011 OF BEKAL POLICE STATION, KASARGOD

¶7

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 TO 3:

¶8

1. ABDULRAHIMAN P.M. @ ANDUIMAYI @ ANDU,AGED 31 YEARS, S/O.MUHAMMED @ MILL MUHAMMED,KOVVAL VALAPPU, UDUMA WEST,BEVOORI,UDMA VILLAGE,KASARAGOD DISTRICT.

¶9

2. FAISAL,32 YEARS, S/O.MOOSA,KOVVAL VALAPPU,UDUMA WEST BEVOORI, UDMA VILLAGE,KASARAGOD DISTRICT.

¶10

3. BASHEER,AGED 31 YEARS, S/O.MUHAMMED,KOTHARAMBATH,UDUMA WEST,BEVOORI, UDMA VILLAGE,KASARAGOD DISTRICT.

¶11

BY ADV. SRI.A.ARUNKUMAR

¶12

RESPONDENTS/STATE/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:

¶13

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM-682 031.

¶14

2. GANESHAN,AGED 38 YEARS, S/O GOPALAN,KANNIYIL HOUSE,UDUMA WEST,BEVOORI, UDMA VILLAGE,KASARAGOD DISTRICT-671 121.

¶15

R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.AMJAD ALI R2 BY ADV. SRI.P.K.SUBHASH

¶16

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09-12-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

msv/

¶18

Crl.MC.No. 5295 of 2016

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES

¶21

ANNEXURE A1 A TRUE COPY OF THE F.I.R. IN CRIME NO.569 OF 2011 OF BEKAL POLICE STATION,KASARAGOD ANNEXURE A2 A TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO.569 OF 2011 OF BEKAL POLICE STATION,KASARAGOD ANNEXURE A3 A TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN TO BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT ENDORSING THE FACTUM OF SETTLEMENT.

¶22

RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURE

NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.S.TO JUDGE

msv/

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V, J

¶28

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

¶29

Crl.M.C. No.5295 of 2016

¶30

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

¶31

Dated this the 9^th day of December, 2016

¶32

O R D E R

¶33

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.

¶34

2.The petitioners herein are the accused Nos.1 to 6 in Crime No.569 of 2011 of Bekal Police Station registered for offences under sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 323, 326, 308, 427, 153(A) read with 149 of the IPC.

¶35

3.The prosecution allegation is that on 12.9.2011 at 1.30 p.m., the petitioners herein formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and in prosecution of their common object and to spread communal hatred wrongfully

¶36

Crl.M.C.5295/2016 2

¶37

restrained the 2^nd respondent and attacked him with an iron rod causing injuries.

¶38

4.Heard the rival submissions. It is submitted by the learned counsel that as accused Nos.1 and 4 were juvenile at the time of incident, the case against them was split up and is now pending before the Juvenile Justice Board.

¶39

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

¶40

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

¶41

Crl.M.C.5295/2016 3

¶42

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.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 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 :

¶46

“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.”

¶47

9.The aforesaid dictum stands reiterated by the Apex Court

¶48

Crl.M.C.5295/2016

¶49

¶50

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

¶51

466, the pertinent observations which are as under:

¶52

XXXXXXXXXXXX

¶53

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:

¶54

(i) ends of justice, or

¶55

(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.

¶56

xxxxxxx

¶57

xxxxxxx

¶58

10.The offence committed by the petitioners cannot be said

¶59

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

¶60

Crl.M.C.5295/2016

¶61

¶62

conviction would be bleak.

¶63

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.

¶64

In the result, this petition will stand allowed. Annexure-AI FIR in Crime No.569 of 2011 of Bekal Police Station and all proceedings pursuant thereto against the petitioners are quashed.

¶65

Sd/RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V. JUDGE

¶66

vps

Abdulrahiman P v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abdulrahiman P v. State

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

Edison Vs State of Kerala

Sujin Vs State of Kerala

Simithiyas Vs the State of Kerala

Nazeem K.K. Vs State of Kerala

Saleesh K.S Vs Mara Pandiyas, I.A.S

Jayakumar Vs Mara Pandiyan