Allowed

Rahim v. the Sub Inspector of Police

Kerala HC1 Nov 2016Crl.MC/5697/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order chronicles the High Court's exercise of inherent powers to quash criminal charges under Sections 341, 324, 325, and 427 IPC arising from a personal dispute. After hearing submissions that the dispute was settled and peace restored, the Court allowed the petition and quashed the proceedings against three accused.

What did the court decide?

The criminal proceedings against respondents 2, 3 in S.C.No.381/2016 and against respondent 4 in C.P.No.63/2016 are quashed.

Rahim Vs the Sub Inspector of Police — Civil Procedure and Limitation | 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 1ST DAY OF NOVEMBER 2016/10TH KARTHIKA, 1938

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 5697 of 2016

¶6

SC 381/2016 OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT - III, MAVELIKKARA CP 63/2016 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, KAYAMKULAM CRIME NO. 130/2014 OF KAYAMKULAM POLICE STATION, ALAPPUZHA

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT..:

¶8

RAHIM, AGED 39 YEARS, S/O HYDERKUTTY, FATHIMASIL, CHINGOLI MURI, CHINGOLI VILLAGE, CHINGOLI P.O, ALAPPUZHA 690 532.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.P.B.SAHASRANAMAN SRI.T.S.HARIKUMAR

¶10

RESPONDENT(S)/STATE AND THE ACCUSED:

¶11

1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KAYAMKULAM POLICE STATION, KAYAMKULAM P.O, ALAPPUZHA 690 502.

¶12

2. NISSAMUDEEN, AGED 40 YEARS, S/O JALALUDEEN, FATHIMANZIL, PANIPPURA THEKKATHIL, KAYAMKULAM VILLAGE, KAYAMKULAM P.O, ALAPPUZHA 690 502.

¶13

3. KOCHUMON, AGED 26 YEARS, S/O ABDUL SAMAD, MALIKKAL VEEDU, KAYAMKULAM VILLAGE, KAYAMKULAM P.O, ALAPPUZHA 690 502.

¶14

4. SHAJI, AGED 45 YEARS, S/O MUHAMMEDU KUNJU, VADAKKETHOPPIL VEEDU, CHERAVALLY MURI, KAYAMKULAM VILLAGE, KAYAMKULAM P.O, ALAPPUZHA 690 502.

¶15

R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.AMJAD ALI

¶16

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01-11-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

¶18

Crl.MC.No. 5697 of 2016

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES

¶21

ANNEXURE A1 THE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT SERVED ON THE 1ST ACCUSED BY THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, KAYAMKULAM ON HIS APPEARANCE. ANNEXURE A2 TRUE ORIGINAL COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE PETITIONER DATED 18-08-2016. RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES ----------------------NIL. / TRUE COPY / P.S. TO JUDGE

¶22

¶23

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN, V., J.

¶24

Crl.M.C. No.5697 of 2016

¶25

Dated this the 1^st day of November, 2016

¶26

O R D E R

¶27

~~~~~~~~

¶28

1.This petition is filed under Section 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.

¶29

2.The petitioner herein is the de facto complainant in Crime No.130 of 2014 of Kayamkulam Police Station. The said crime has been registered against the respondents 2 to 4 herein for offences punishable under Sections 341, 324, 325, 427 read with Section 34 of the IPC. The prosecution allegation is that owing to previous enmity, on 16.1.2014 at 9.45 a.m., the respondents 2 to 4 wrongfully restrained the petitioner herein and thereafter assaulted him with

¶30

-2-

¶31

Crl.M.C. No. 5697 of 2016

¶32

weapons causing injuries. It is further alleged that the respondents 2 to 4 caused damages to the car of the petitioner herein resulting in loss of Rs.11,300/-. It appears that final report was laid omitting Section 308 of the IPC. Aggrieved by the above, a complaint was preferred by the petitioner which was forwarded to the police. After investigation, final report has been laid before the Jurisdictional court. In so far as the respondents 2 and 3 are concerned, the case is pending as S.C.No.381 of 2016 on the file of the Additional Sessions Court-III, Mavelikkara. In so far as the 4^th respondent is concerned, the case is pending as C.P.No.63 of 2016 on the files of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kayamkulam.

¶33

3.Heard the submissions advanced.

¶34

4.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits

¶35

Crl.M.C. No. 5697 of 2016

¶36

-3-

¶37

that he has no further grievance against the respondents 2 to 4. According to him, parties are now living in peace and harmony and the pendency of the criminal proceeding will impede their relationship. It is further urged that the dispute is purely personal in nature and will not affect public peace or tranquility. Summing up it is prayed that the criminal proceedings be terminated to promote peace and harmony.

¶38

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 respondents 2 to 4.

¶39

6.I have considered the submissions .

¶40

-4-

¶41

Crl.M.C. No. 5697 of 2016

¶42

7.In Gian singh v. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303

¶43

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 :

¶44

“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.”

¶45

8.The aforesaid dictum stands reiterated by the Apex Court

¶46

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

¶47

466, the pertinent observations which are as under:

¶48

-5-

¶49

Crl.M.C. No. 5697 of 2016

¶50

XXXXXXXXXXXX

¶51

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:

¶52

(i) ends of justice, or (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. xxxxxxx xxxxxxx

¶53

9.The offence committed by the respondents 2 to 4 cannot

¶54

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. 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.

¶55

10.Having considered all the relevant circumstances, I am of

¶56

Crl.M.C. No. 5697 of 2016

¶57

-6-

¶58

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.

¶59

In the result, this petition will stand allowed. All further proceedings against the respondents 2 and 3 in S.C.No.381 of 2016 on the file of the Additional Sessions Court-III, Mavelikkara and against the 4^th respondent in C.P.No.63 of 2016 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of

¶60

First Class, Kayamkulam are quashed.

¶61

Sd/-

¶62

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN, V. JUDGE

¶63

Ps/1/11/16

Rahim v. the Sub Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rahim v. the Sub Inspector of Police

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

Sujith .v Vs State of Kerala

K.S.Dinesh Vs the State of Kerala

Praveen Vs State of Kerala

Yacob . M.O Vs State of Kerala

Ismail a Vs Naduppattil Aboobacker

Suresh Mathew Vs Baby Mathew