Allowed

Shameem @ Shameemudheen v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC25 Oct 2016Crl.MC/5568/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal miscellaneous petition, the High Court of Kerala examined whether criminal proceedings could be quashed under Section 482 CrPC following a settlement between the complainant and the petitioners in a case involving affray and hurt.

What did the court decide?

The petition was allowed; FIR in Crime No. 264 of 2016 and all proceedings against petitioners were quashed.

Shameem @ Shameemudheen 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

TUESDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2016/3RD KARTHIKA, 1938

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 5568 of 2016 ()

¶6

--------------------------CRIME NO. 264/2016 OF KOTTAKKAL POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶7

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.1 TO 5:

¶8

1. SHAMEEM @ SHAMEEMUDHEEN, S/O.SAIDALAVI, AGED 22 YEARS, PARAMMAL KUDUKKENGAL HOUSE, PONMUNDAM AMSOM DESOM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶9

2. JABIR,

¶10

S/O.ABOOBACKER, AGED 19 YEARS, PATHIYIL HOUSE, RANDATHANI. P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-676 510.

¶11

3. MUHAMMEDALI P.V.,

¶12

S/O.KUTTYHASSAN, AGED 19 YEARS,

¶13

PUTHUVALLIL HOUSE, KAREKKAD. P.O.,

¶14

KADAMPUZHA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-676 553.

¶15

4. RAHMATHULLA,

¶16

S/O.RAYIN HAARI, AGED 24 YEARS,

¶17

KADAKKADAN HOUSE, KOLKALAM, CHENGOTTUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-676 503.

¶18

5. SHUHAIB,

¶19

S/O.ABDU, AGED 22 YEARS, KARIKURIYATTIL HOUSE, OTHUKKUNGAL,

¶20

P.O. MATTATHUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-676 528.

¶21

BY ADV. SRI.U.K.DEVIDAS.

¶22

RESPONDENTS/STATE/COMPLAINANT:

¶23

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KOTTAKKAL POLICE STATION, THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶24

Crl.MC.No. 5568 of 2016

¶25

2. MUHAMMED SHAYAF, S/O.MUHAMMED SHAREEF, AGED 19 YEARS, THAMARASSERI HOUSE, CHOONUR, CHENGOTTUR. P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶26

R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.T.R. RENJITH. R2 BY ADV. SRI.PRINSUN PHILIP

¶27

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25-10-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶28

rs.

¶29

Crl.MC.No. 5568 of 2016

¶30

APPENDIX

¶31

PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:-

¶32

ANNEXURE I CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIRST INFORMATION REPORT IN CRIME NO.264/2016 OF KOTTAKKAL POLICE STATION DATED 15.06.2016. ANNEXURE II COPY OF THE FIRST INFORMATION STATEMENT IN CRIME NO.264/2016 OF KOTTAKKAL POLICE STATION DATED 15.06.2016. ANNEXURE III TRUE COPY OF THE WOUND CERTIFICATE FROM THE HEARTS MALABAR SUPER SPECIALITY HOSPITAL, KOTTAKKAL DATED 12.07.2016. ANNEXURE IV THE ORIGINAL OF THE AFFIDAVIT DATED 06.08.2016 EXECUTED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT.

¶33

RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES:- NIL.

//TRUE COPY//

P.S. TO JUDGE

rs.

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V, J

¶38

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

¶39

Crl.M.C. No.5568 of 2016

¶40

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

¶41

Dated this the 25^th day of October, 2016

¶42

O R D E R

¶43

1.This petition, filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'Code'), has been preferred by the petitioners herein for quashing the proceedings pending against them in Crime No.264 of 2016 of Kottakkal Police Station. The aforesaid crime has been registered at the instance of the 2^nd respondent herein for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 323, 324 and 326 read with 149 of the IPC.

¶44

2.The prosecution allegation is that on 15.6.2016 at 2.15 pm, the petitioners formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and in furtherance of their common object assaulted the de facto complainant with weapons and caused injuries.

¶45

Crl.M.C.5568/2016

¶46

¶47

3.The 2^nd respondent has entered appearance through his counsel and has filed Annexure-IV affidavit wherein he stated that he has no subsisting grievance against the petitioners. He asserts in the affidavit that he does not wish that the criminal proceedings against the petitioners should continue.

¶48

4.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that in view of the settlement arrived at between the parties, this Court will be justified in quashing the proceedings.

¶49

5.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.

¶50

Crl.M.C.5568/2016

¶51

¶52

6.In Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Another [2012

¶53

(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 Code, to quash criminal proceedings. It was held that the power vested in the High Court under Section 482 of the 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 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

¶54

Crl.M.C.5568/2016

¶55

¶56

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 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].

¶57

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.2 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

¶58

Crl.M.C.5568/2016 5

¶59

exercise. It would also put the petitioners and the 2^nd respondent to great oppression and prejudice

¶60

8.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.

¶61

In the result, this petition will stand allowed. Annexure-I FIR in Crime No.264 of 2016 of Kottakkal Police Station and all proceedings pursuant thereto against the petitioners are quashed.

¶62

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V. JUDGE

¶63

vps

Shameem @ Shameemudheen v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shameem @ Shameemudheen 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

Abdusalam Vs State of Kerala

Shakir Vs State of Kerala

Ajeer Vs M.K.Sayed

Abbas Vs State of Kerala

Shiju Vs Nisamudheen

Suresh M.K. Vs State Ofkerala