Allowed

Nassayi Muhammed P.K v. Faizal Kottarathil

Kerala HC21 Nov 2016Crl.MC/6333/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed a petition under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of criminal proceedings. The Court held that the dispute is personal, amicably settled, and lacks serious societal impact. Relying on Supreme Court precedents, the Court found continuing proceedings would be an abuse of process.

What did the court decide?

FIR in Crime No.1443 of 2015 and all proceedings pursuant thereto against the petitioners are quashed.

Nassayi Muhammed P.K Vs Faizal Kottarathil — 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

MONDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF NOVEMBER 2016/30TH KARTHIKA, 1938

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 6333 of 2016 ()

¶6

CRIME NO. 1443/2015 OF MATTANNUR POLICE STATION , KANNUR

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED 1 TO 4:

¶8

1. NASSAYI MUHAMMED P.K AGED 21, S/O. ABDUL SALAM, CEEVEES'S VILLA, KALAROD, MATTANNUR, KANNUR.

¶9

2. P SHAMSHEERM S/O. USMAN, AGED 21 YEARS, RAHMATH MANZIL, P.O. KOLARI,

¶10

3. P MUHAMMED RAFAL, S/O. ABDUL RASSAK, AGED 20 YEARS, KHADEEJA MANZIL, ELLAMULLA, MATTANUR.

¶11

4. V. RINSHAD,

¶12

S/O. ABDUL RAHIMAN, AGED 20 YEARS, RASHINA MANZIL, ELLAMULLA, MATTANNUR.

¶13

BY ADVS.SRI.PHIJO PRADEESH PHILIP SMT.T.S.REMYA

¶14

RESPONDENT(S)/DEFACTO- COMPLAINANT & STATE.:

¶15

1. FAIZAL KOTTARATHIL

¶16

S/O. T.K. MUSTHAFA, AGED 30 YEARS, NASEER MANZIL, PARIYARAM, KOLARI P.O., IRITTY TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT PIN- 670 110.

¶17

2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MATTANNUR POLICE STATION, KANNUR THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶18

R1 BY ADV. SRI.JEEVAN MATHEW MANAYANI BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.PRIYA SHANAVAS

¶19

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21-11-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

Crl.MC.No. 6333 of 2016 ()

¶21

APPENDIX

¶22

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶23

----------------------ANNEXURE I CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO. 1443/2015 OF MATTANNUR POLICE STATION IN KANNUR DISTRICT. ANNEXURE II ORIGINAL OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT/DEFACTO-COMPLAINANT DATED 9.12.15.

¶24

RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES -----------------------

NIL

/TRUE COPY/

VPS PS TO JUDGE

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V, J

¶29

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

¶30

Crl.M.C. No.6333 of 2016

¶31

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

¶32

Dated this the 21^st day of November, 2016

¶33

O R D E R

¶34

1.This petition is filed under S.482 of the Code of Criminal

¶35

Procedure ( hereinafter referred to as the Code ) with a prayer to invoke the extraordinary inherent powers and to quash the pending criminal proceedings.

¶36

2.The petitioners herein are the accused Nos. 1 to 4 in Crime No.1443 of 2015 of Mattannur Police Station registered at the instance of the 1^st respondent herein alleging offences punishable under Sections 341, 323 and 324 read with Section 34 of the IPC.

¶37

3.The prosecution allegation is that on 5.12.2015 at 6.30 p.m., the petitioners in furtherance of their common intention wrongfully restrained the 1^st respondent herein and thereafter assaulted him causing injuries.

¶38

Crl.M.C.6333/2016 2

¶39

4.Heard the submissions advanced.

¶40

5.The learned counsel appearing for the 1^st 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.

¶41

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.

¶42

7.I have considered the submissions .

¶43

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

¶44

Crl.M.C.6333/2016

¶45

¶46

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 :

¶47

“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.”

¶48

9.The aforesaid dictum stands reiterated by the Apex Court in Narinder singh v. State of Punjab. (2014) 6 SCC

¶49

466, the pertinent observations which are as under:

¶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

Crl.M.C.6333/2016

¶53

¶54

(i) ends of justice, or

¶55

(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.

¶56

xxxxxxx

¶57

xxxxxxx

¶58

10.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 .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.

¶59

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 the Code to quash the proceedings.

¶60

In the result, this petition will stand allowed. Annexure-I

¶61

Crl.M.C.6333/2016

¶62

¶63

FIR in Crime No.1443 of 2015 of Mattannur Police Station

¶64

and all proceedings pursuant thereto against the

¶65

petitioners are quashed.

¶66

Sd/RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V. JUDGE

¶67

vps

Nassayi Muhammed P.K v. Faizal Kottarathil

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nassayi Muhammed P.K v. Faizal Kottarathil

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

Kunjumon Vs State

Anu @ Sudheesh Vs State of Kerala

Pradeepan.K Vs State of Kerala

A John Vs the Director General of Police

Alosious Vs State of Kerala

V.N.Rajappan Vs State of Kerala