Allowed

Ajeer v. M.K.Sayed

Kerala HC24 Oct 2016Crl.MC/5379/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed an application under Section 482 CrPC to quash criminal proceedings for theft and mischief. The court held that since the offence was not grave, had no serious impact on society, and the parties had amicably settled the dispute, quashing was justified to prevent futile exercise and oppression.

What did the court decide?

FIR in Crime No. 868 of 2014 and all subsequent proceedings against the petitioners were quashed.

Ajeer Vs M.K.Sayed — 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

MONDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2016/2ND KARTHIKA, 1938

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 5379 of 2016 ()

¶6

CRIME NO. 868/2014 OF CHANDERA POLICE STATION , KASARGOD

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED NO 1 & 2:

¶8

1. AJEER S/O. MUHAMMED ALI M.K MADAKKAL KURUPPILAKATH, UDUMBUMTHALA P.O, SOUTH THRIKARIPUR, HOSDURG,KASARGOD DT

¶9

2. RASHEED S/O. AHAMMED KUTTY, 45 YEARS,RESIDING AT PUTHIYATHERU, KANNUR DISTRICT

¶10

BY ADVS.SRI.K.R.AVINASH (KUNNATH) SRI.ABDUL RAOOF PALLIPATH SRI.PRAJIT RATNAKARAN

¶11

RESPONDENTS/DEFACTO COMPLAINANTS & STATE:

¶12

1. M.K.SAYED AGED 39 YEARS, S/O. USMAN HAJI, MADAKKAL KURUPPILAKATH, UDUMBUMTHALA P.O SOUTH THRIKARIPUR HOSDURG,KASARAGOD 671 315

¶13

2. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER CHANDERA POLICE STATION, KASARAGOD DISTRICT, THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM 682 031

¶14

R1 BY ADV. SRI.C.H.ABDUL RASAC R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. AMJAD ALI.

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24-10-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

Crl.MC.No. 5379 of 2016 () ---------------------------

¶17

APPENDIX

¶18

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

¶19

ANNEXURE 1 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO 868/2014 OF CHANDERA POLICE STATION KASARAGOD ANNEXURE 2 TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORNB IN BY RESPONDENT NO 1

¶20

RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES: NIL

TRUE COPY

P.A. TO JUDGE.

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V., J.

¶25

Crl.M.C. No. 5379 of 2016

¶26

Dated this the 24^th day of October, 2016

¶27

O R D E R

¶28

1.This petition is fled under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking to quash the proceedings by the petitioners, who are the accused Nos. 1 and 2 in Crime

¶29

No. 868 of 2014 of Chandera Police Station. The aforesaid crime has been registered at the instance of the 1^st respondent herein alleging offences punishable under Section 457, 427, 380 r/w Section 34 of the IPC.

¶30

2.The prosecution allegation is that the petitioners herein trespassed into the shoproom of the de facto complainant by breaking open the shutter and after committing mischief pilfered a sum of Rs. 45,000/- .

¶31

3.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, 1^st respondent and the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶32

4.The learned counsel appearing for the 1^st respondent

¶33

Crl.M.C. No. 5379 of 2016 -2-

¶34

submits that disputes have been amicably resolved. It is further submitted that an affidavit has been sworn to by him before this Court asserting that he has no objection in quashing criminal proceedings as against the petitioners herein.

¶35

5.The learned Public Prosecutor on the other hand, submitted that the petitioner is involved in 3 other crimes which are pending as C.C.No 1395 of 2014, C.C.No. 3333 of 2013 and C.C.No. 3003 of 2013 pending before various courts. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that all these proceedings were initiated by the 1^st respondent herein and all proceedings have been quashed by this court in Crl.M.C.No. 4134 of 2016, 4109 of 2016 and 4140 of 2016.

¶36

6.In Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Another [2012 (10)SCC 303], the Apex Court has crystalised the position in respect of the powers vested in the High Court under S.482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, to quash criminal

¶37

Crl.M.C. No. 5379 of 2016

¶38

-3-

¶39

proceedings. It was held that the power vested in the High Court under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, is not limited to quashing proceedings within the ambit and scope of Section 320 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The three - Judge Bench in the above case, clearly expounded, that quashing of criminal proceedings under S.482 of the Criminal Procedure 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 Criminal Procedure 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, the parties should have resolved their

¶40

Crl.M.C. No. 5379 of 2016

¶41

-4-

¶42

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 2452].

¶43

7.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 does not appear that the offence in this case will have a serious impact on the society. More over, when the respondent No. 1 has 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 the respondent to great oppression and prejudice.

¶44

Having considered all the relevant circumstances, I am of

¶45

the considered view that this Court will be well justified in

¶46

Crl.M.C. No. 5379 of 2016

¶47

-5-

¶48

invoking its extra ordinary powers under Section 482 of the Code to quash the proceedings.

¶49

In the result, this petition will stand allowed. Annexure-1 FIR in Crime No. 868 of 2014 of Chandera Police Station and all proceedings pursuant thereto against the petitioners are quashed.

¶50

Sd/-

¶51

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V., JUDGE

¶52

SKS

¶53

//TRUE COPY//

¶54

P.A. TO JUDGE

Ajeer v. M.K.Sayed

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ajeer v. M.K.Sayed

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

Hassainar @ Hassan Vs State of Kerala

Aboobakkar Vs State of Kerala

Aboobakkar Vs State of Kerala

Abdusalam Vs State of Kerala

Shakir Vs State of Kerala

Jose Vs State of Kerala