Allowed

Hassan Haji v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC11 Nov 2016Crl.MC/5401/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a petition under Section 482 CrPC to quash criminal proceedings. Relying on settled precedent regarding the settlement of private disputes, the Court held that quashing was justified to secure the ends of justice and prevent the abuse of process, as the offence did not involve grave depravity.

What did the court decide?

The petition was allowed, and the Criminal FIR (No. 733/2015) and all subsequent proceedings against the petitioners are quashed.

Hassan Haji 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

FRIDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2016/20TH KARTHIKA, 1938

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 5401 of 2016 ()

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRMC 747/2015 of D.C.& SESSIONS COURT,MANJERI DATED 16-05-2015 CRIME NO. 733/2015 OF TIRUR POLICE STATION , MALAPPURAM

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED 1 TO 5:

¶8

HASSAN HAJI S/O. MUHAMMEDKUTTY HAJI, CHELAKKAL HOUSE, POOKAYIL PO., TIRUR TALUK.

¶9

MUHAMMED FAZIL, S/O. KAMMUHAJI, CHELAKKAL HOUSE, POOKAYIL PO., TIRUR TALUK.

¶10

MUHAMMED SHEBEER S/O. HASSAN HAJI, CHELAKKAL HOUSE, POOKAYIL PO., TIRUR TALUK.

¶11

SADATH HASSAN, HAMZA HAJI, PARUTHIKUNNAN HOUSE, POOKAYIL PO., TIRUR TALUK,

¶12

MUHAMMED RAFI S/O. KAMMUHAJI, CHELAKKAL HOUSE, POOKAYIL PO., TIRUR TALUK.

¶13

BY ADV. SMT.N.DEEPA

¶14

RESPONDENT(S)/STATE, COMPLAINANT & INJURED:

¶15

STATE OF KERALA REP. BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, (CRIME NO.733/2015), TIRUR POLICE STATION, REP. THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM 682031

¶16

CONTD...

¶17

:2:

¶18

Crl.MC.No. 5401 of 2016 () ---------------------------

¶19

MOHAMMED SHANU AGED 28 YEARS, S/O. MUHAMMED KUTTY POKKLASSERI SHANU HOUSE, POOKAYIL PO., TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM PIN-676101 R2 BY ADV. SRI.R.KRISHNAKUMAR (CHERTHALA) R BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, SRI. AMJAD ALI THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11-11-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

CONTD...

¶21

:3:

¶22

Crl.MC.No. 5401 of 2016 () ---------------------------

¶23

APPENDIX

¶24

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶25

----------------------ANNEXURE A1: A TRUE COPY OF THE F.I STATEMENT OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT BEFORE THE TIRUR POLICE DT. 07-05-2015 ANNEXURE A2: A TRUE COPY OF THE F.I.R. NO.733/2015 OF TIRUR POLICE STATION, TIRUR DT. -07-05-2015

¶26

ANNEXURE A3: A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DT. 16-05-2015 IN CRL.M.C.NO.747/2015 OF THE HON'BLE SESSIONS JUDGE, MANJERI

¶27

ANNEXURE A4: A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTARIZED AFFIDAVIT OF THE 2ND RESPONDNE TDT. 25-01-2016 RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : NIL -----------------------

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE

SKS

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V, J

¶32

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

¶33

Crl.M.C. No.5401 of 2016

¶34

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

¶35

Dated this the 11^th day of November, 2016

¶36

O R D E R

¶37

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.

¶38

2.The petitioners herein are the accused Nos.1 to 5 in Crime No. 733 of 2015 of Tirur Police Station registered at the instance of the 2^nd respondent herein for having committed offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 149, 324, 452, 506 (i) of the IPC. The 2^nd respondent herein is the son-in-law of the 1^st petitioner.

¶39

3.The prosecution allegation is that on 05.05.2015, at 11.30 a.m, the petitioners in furtherance of their common intention formed themselves into an unlawful assembly, trespassed into the house of the 2^nd respondent and thereafter attacked him with weapons and caused injuries.

¶40

Crl.M.C. No. 5401 of 2016

¶41

¶42

4.Heard the submissions advanced.

¶43

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.

¶44

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 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.

¶45

7.I have considered the submissions .

¶46

8.In Gian singh v. State of Punjab [ (2012) 10 SCC 303],

¶47

Crl.M.C. No. 5401 of 2016

¶48

¶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 follows :

¶50

“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.”

¶51

9.The aforesaid dictum stands reiterated by the Apex Court

¶52

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

¶53

466], the pertinent observations which are as under:

¶54

XXXXXXXXXXXX

¶55

29.2. When the parties have reached the settlement and on that basis petition for quashing the criminal proceedings is filed, the guiding factor

¶56

Crl.M.C. No. 5401 of 2016

¶57

¶58

in such cases would be to secure:

¶59

(i) ends of justice, or

¶60

(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.

¶61

xxxxxxx

¶62

xxxxxxx

¶63

10.The offence committed by the petitioners cannot be said

¶64

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 conviction would be bleak.

¶65

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

¶66

Crl.M.C. No. 5401 of 2016

¶67

¶68

the Code to quash the proceedings.

¶69

In the result, this petition will stand allowed. AnnexureA2 FIR in Crime No. 733 of 2015 of Tirur Police Station and all proceedings pursuant thereto against the petitioners are quashed.

¶70

Sd/RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V. JUDGE

¶71

SKS

¶72

//TRUE COPY//

¶73

P.A. TO JUDGE

Hassan Haji v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hassan Haji 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

The Forest Range Officer Vs Hamza.K

S.v.Musthafa Vs State of Kerala

Henry Vijayakumar Vs State of Kerala

Salim Vs State of Kerala

Sameer Babu Vs State of Kerala

Lallu Vs Ani