Allowed

Aboobakkar v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC21 Oct 2016Crl.MC/6026/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala, in this criminal miscellaneous case, allowed a petition under Section 482 CrPC to quash criminal proceedings for assault and wrongful confinement. The Court held that since the dispute arose from a civil matter concerning a pathway and a settlement agreement existed between the parties, the proceedings could be quashed to restore peace and harmony.

What did the court decide?

The proceedings pending as C.C. No. 867 of 2010 against the petitioner before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Parappanangadi, are quashed.

Aboobakkar 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 21ST DAY OF OCTOBER 2016/29TH ASWINA, 1938

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 6026 of 2016 ()

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC 867/2010 of J.M.F.C.,PARAPPANANGADI DATED CRIME NO. 9/2010 OF THIRURANGADI POLICE STATION , MALAPPURAM

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED:

¶8

ABOOBAKKAR AGED 44 YEARS, S/O.MOHAMMAD, POOCHENGAL KUNNATH, PANTHARANGADI POST, THRIKKULAM, PALLIPPADI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 676306.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.ARUN MATHEW VADAKKAN

¶10

RESPONDENT(S)/STATE & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:

¶11

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTING SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, TIRURANGADI POLICE STATION, TIRURANGADI - 676306, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶12

YAKOOB S/O.SAIDALAVI, AGED 37 YEARS, MACHINGAL HOUSE, PANTHARANGADI POST, THRIKKULAM, PALLIPPADI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN 676306.

¶13

R2 BY ADV. SRI.K.P.SUDHEER

¶14

R BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21-10-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

CONTD...

¶17

:2:

¶18

Crl.MC.No. 6026 of 2016 ()

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶21

ANNEXURE A1: CERTIFIED COPY OF FIRST INFORMATION REPORT DATED 3.1.2010 IN CRIME NO.9/2010 OF TIRURANGADI POLICE STATION.

¶22

ANNEXURE-A2: CERTIFIED COPY OF FINAL REPORT DATED 30.01.2010 IN CRIME NO.9/2010 OF TIRURANGADI POLICE STATION.

¶23

ANNEXURE-A3: TRUE COPY OF PLAINT DATED 12.1.2010 IN O.S.NO.17/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, PARAPPANANGADI.

¶24

ANNEXURE-A4: TRUE COPY OF AGREEMENT DATED 24.9.2015 ENTERED INTO BETWEEN THE PARTIES.

¶25

ANNEXURE-A5: AFFIDVIT DATED 27.8.2016 EXECUTED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶26

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : NIL -----------------------

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE

SKS

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V., J.

¶31

Crl. M.C. No. 6026 of 2016

¶32

Dated this the 21^st day of October, 2016

¶33

O R D E R

¶34

1.This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal

¶35

Procedure (for short 'Code') has been preferred by the petitioner herein for quashing the proceedings pending against him as C.C. No. 867 of 2010 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Parappanangadi. In the said case, he stands indicted for offences punishable under Sections 341, 324 and 427 of the IPC.

¶36

2.The prosecution allegation is that, on 2.1.2010 at 7.00 pm,

¶37

the petitioner wrongfully restrained the 2^nd respondent and assaulted her causing injuries.

¶38

3.I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the 2^nd respondent and the learned Public Prosecutor. It is submitted that there was a dispute concerning a pathway which led to the institution of

¶39

Crl. M.C. No. 6026 of 2016

¶40

-2-

¶41

O.S.No.117 of 2010 before the Court of the Munsiff, Parappanangadi. As an aftermath to the civil proceedings, several criminal cases happened to be registered against the rival parties. Finally, at the instance of mediators and well-wishers, all pending disputes were settled and the parties are living in peace and harmony. It is urged that the pendency of the criminal proceedings will fuel fresh disputes and is likely to disturb the amity between the parties. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the 2^nd respondent relies on Annexure-A4 settlement agreement wherein both the parties have agreed that all pending civil and criminal disputes will be withdrawn.

¶42

4.Learned counsel appearing for the 2^nd respondent refers to Annexure-A5 affidavit sworn to by him and submits that no acrimony exists between the parties. According to the learned counsel, the 2^nd respondent has no objection in quashing the proceedings.

¶43

Crl. M.C. No. 6026 of 2016

¶44

-3-

¶45

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

¶46

6.The learned Public Prosecutor on instructions has submitted that the disputes have been resolved and in view of Annexure-A4, the State has no serious objections in quashing the proceedings as it would bring about peace and harmony between the rival parties.

¶47

7.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 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

¶48

Crl. M.C. No. 6026 of 2016

¶49

-4-

¶50

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 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].

¶51

Crl. M.C. No. 6026 of 2016

¶52

-5-

¶53

8.I have considered the rival submissions and I have gone through the materials on record. The offence committed by the petitioner 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 petitioner would be a futile exercise. Further more, settlement will augur well for the interest for the community and will enable the parties to live in peace and harmony.

¶54

9.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.

¶55

In the result, this petition will stand allowed. Annexure-A2 final report and all proceedings pursuant

¶56

Crl. M.C. No. 6026 of 2016

¶57

-6-

¶58

thereto against the petitioner now pending as C.C. No. 867 of 2010 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I,

¶59

Parappanangadi are quashed.

¶60

Sd/-