Allowed

Afsal Kalarikettiparambathu v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC28 Nov 2016Crl.MC/5750/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The single-judge bench allowed the petition invoking inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC to quash pending criminal proceedings. The Court found that the dispute was amicably settled, the offence was not grave, and continuing prosecution would be an abuse of process, thus quashing the case to promote peace.

What did the court decide?

The criminal proceedings in C.P.No.138 of 2015 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Vadakara, including the FIR and all subsequent actions against the petitioners, are quashed.

Afsal Kalarikettiparambathu Vs the State of Kerala — 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

MONDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2016/7TH AGRAHAYANA, 1938

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 5750 of 2016 ()

¶6

AGAINST CP 138/2015 of J.F.C.M,VADAKARA DATED CRIME NO. 1135/2010 OF VATAKARA POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE

¶7

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED:

¶8

1. AFSAL KALARIKETTIPARAMBATHU AGED 30 YEARS, S/O.AMMAD (LATE), PONMERIPARAMBIL, AMSOM AND DESOM, VADAKARA TALUK, CALICUT DISTRICT, PIN 673542

¶9

2. SHYJAN KURULIKANDI AGED 25 YEARS, S/O.KUNHABDULLA, PONMERIPARAMBIL, AMSOM AND DESOM, VADAKARA TALUK, CALICUT DISTRICT, PIN 673542

¶10

3. SHAJAHAN AGED 33 YEARS, S/O.KUNHABDULLA, CHEROTH, PONMERIPARAMBIL, AMSOM AND DESOM, VADAKARA TALUK, CALICUT DISTRICT, PIN 673542

¶11

BY ADV. SMT.P.K.PRIYA

¶12

RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT:

¶13

1. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SHO, NADAPURAM

¶14

2. P.A. KUMARAN MASTER AGED 62 YEARS, S/O.KANNAN, CHATHOTHU VAYALKUNI, PONMERIPARAMBIL, AMSOM AND DESOM, VADAKARA TALUK, CALICUT DISTRICT, PIN 673542

¶15

R2 BY ADV. SMT.T.M.BINITHA BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.T.R.RENJITH

¶16

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28-11-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

Crl.MC.No. 5750 of 2016 ()

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES

¶20

ANNEXURE A1 TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO. 1135/2010 OF VADAKARA POLICE STATION

¶21

ANNEXURE A2 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTARIZED COPY OF THE AFIDAVIT OF THE DEFACTO COMPLAINANT IN CRIME NO. 1135/2010 DATED 14.07.2016 OF VADAKARA POLICE STATION

¶22

RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES

NIL

/TRUE COPY/

VPS PS TO JUDGE

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V, J

¶27

Crl.M.C. No.5750 of 2016

¶28

Dated this the 28^th day of November, 2016

¶29

O R D E R

¶30

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.

¶31

2.The petitioners herein are the accused in C.P.No.138 of 2015 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Vadakara. They stand indicted under Sections 143, 147, 148, 427, 506(i) read with Section 149 of the IPC and under sections 3 and 5 of the Explosives Act, 1884. 2^nd respondent is de facto complainant.

¶32

3.The prosecution allegation is that on 26.10.2010 at 3.30 p.m, the petitioners along with four others, who could be identified at sight, wrongfully trespassed into the house of the 2^nd respondent and committed mischief

¶33

Crl.M.C.5750/2016 2

¶34

causing a loss of Rs.40,000/-. It is further alleged that crackers were thrown at the house thus inviting the penal provisions under the Explosives Act.

¶35

4.Heard the submissions advanced.

¶36

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.

¶37

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.

¶38

7.I have considered the submissions.

¶39

Crl.M.C.5750/2016

¶40

¶41

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

¶42

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 :

¶43

“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.”

¶44

9.The aforesaid dictum stands reiterated by the Apex Court

¶45

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

¶46

466, the pertinent observations which are as under:

XXXXXXXXXXXX

Crl.M.C.5750/2016

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:

¶51

(i) ends of justice, or

¶52

(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.

¶53

xxxxxxx

¶54

xxxxxxx

¶55

10.The offence committed by the petitioners cannot be said

¶56

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.

¶57

Crl.M.C.5750/2016

¶58

¶59

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

¶60

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-A1 FIR and all proceedings pursuant thereto against the petitioners in C.P.No.138 of 2015 on the file of

¶62

the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Vadakara are

¶63

quashed.

¶64

Sd/-

¶65

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V. JUDGE

¶66

vps

Afsal Kalarikettiparambathu v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Afsal Kalarikettiparambathu v. the 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chappan Puthiya Purayil Moosan Kunhi Vs State of Kerala

George Vs State

Binu Krishnan Vs State of Kerala

Benny Varghese Vs the State of Kerala

Mani Vs State of Kerala

Prakash Panavelil Vs State of Kerala