Allowed

Farhad Kasim Rahman v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC25 Nov 2016Crl.MC/6962/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Hon'ble High Court of Kerala allowed a petition under Section 482 CrPC to quash criminal proceedings. The court held that the offence was not serious, the dispute was resolved amicably, and quashing would secure the ends of justice and prevent abuse of process.

What did the court decide?

The pending criminal proceedings under C.C.No.967 of 2012, including the final report, are quashed against the petitioners.

Farhad Kasim Rahman Vs 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

FRIDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2016/4TH AGRAHAYANA, 1938

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 6962 of 2016 ()

¶6

AGAINST CC 967/2012 of J.M.F.C.-II, KOLLAM CRIME NO. 788/2012 OF ERAVIPURAM POLICE STATION , KOLLAM

¶7

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED:

¶8

1. FARHAD KASIM RAHMAN

¶9

S/O MUHAMMED KASIM, AGED:27 YEARS,

¶10

ALUMMOODU HOUSE, PARAYIL,

¶11

NEAR PAKISTAN MUKKU,

¶12

EDAVA VILLAGE, VARKALA,

¶13

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT

¶14

2. MUHAMMED HARIF

¶15

S/O NOPUSHAD, AGED 27 YEARS,

¶16

FATHIMA MANZIL,

¶17

UDAYATHARA NAGAR-117,

¶18

VALATHUNGAL CHERRY, ERAVIPURAM VILLAGE, KOLLAM

¶19

3. THANVEER

¶20

S/O ABDUL RASHEED, AGED 27 YEARS.

¶21

THASNI MANZIL, KAYYALAKKAL CHERRY,

¶22

ERAVIPURAM VILLAGE, KOLLAM

¶23

4. N.N.JASEEM

¶24

S/O NASARUDEEN, AGED 27 YEARS,

¶25

JAS MANZIL, VADAKKEVILA CHERRY,

¶26

VADAKKEVILA VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT

¶27

BY ADVS.SRI.K.SIJU SMT.S.SEETHA

¶28

RESPONDENT(S)/DE-FACTO COMPLAINANT & STATE:

¶29

1. STATE OF KERALA THROUGH THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ERAVIPURAM POLICE STATION, REPERESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA - 682 031

¶30

2. AKHIL MURALI AGED 26 YEARS, S/O MURALEEDHARAN, PRANAVAM, KADAMBATTUKONAM CHERR, NAVAIKULMAM VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT - 695 117

¶31

R1 BY ADV. SRI.A.MUHAMMED RAFFI R BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, SRI.T.R.RENJITH

¶32

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25-11-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶33

Crl.MC.No. 6962 of 2016 ()

¶34

APPENDIX

¶35

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶36

A1: THE COPY OF THE FIR WITH FIS IN CRIME NO. 788/2012 OF ERAVIPURAM POLICE STATION.

¶37

A2: THE COPY OF FINAL REPORT SUBMITTED IN CRIME NO. 788/2012

¶38

A3: TRUE CPY OF AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE DE-FACTO COMPLAINANT REGARDING STATEMENT DATED 15/10/2016

¶39

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS

¶40

//TRUE COPY//

¶41

PA TO JUDGE

¶42

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V, J

¶43

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

¶44

Crl.M.C. No.6962 of 2016

¶45

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

¶46

Dated this the 25^th day of November, 2016

¶47

O R D E R

¶48

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.

¶49

2.The petitioners herein are the accused Nos. 1 to 4 in C.C.No.967 of 2012 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-II, Kollam. In the aforesaid case, they stand indicted under Section 341, 323 read with Section 34 of the IPC.

¶50

3.The crux of the prosecution allegation is that on 8.5.2012 at 1.20 p.m., the petitioners herein in prosecution of their common object wrongfully restrained the 2^nd respondent and thereafter assaulted him causing injuries.

¶51

Crl.M.C.6962/2016

¶52

¶53

4.Heard the submissions advanced.

¶54

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.

¶55

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.

¶56

7.I have considered the submissions.

¶57

Crl.M.C.6962/2016

¶58

¶59

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

¶60

“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.”

¶61

9.The aforesaid dictum stands reiterated by the Apex Court

¶62

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

¶63

466], the pertinent observations which are as under:

¶64

XXXXXXXXXXXX

¶65

29.2. When the parties have reached the settlement and on that basis

¶66

Crl.M.C.6962/2016

¶67

¶68

petition for quashing the criminal proceedings is filed, the guiding factor in such cases would be to secure:

¶69

(i) ends of justice, or

¶70

(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.

¶71

xxxxxxx

¶72

xxxxxxx

¶73

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.

¶74

11.Having considered all the relevant circumstances, I am of the considered view that this Court will be well justified in

¶75

Crl.M.C.6962/2016

¶76

¶77

invoking its extra ordinary powers under Section 482 of the Code to quash the proceedings.

¶78

In the result, this petition will stand allowed. Annexure-2 final report and all proceedings pursuant thereto against the petitioners now pending as C.C.No.967 of 2012 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-II, Kollam are quashed.

¶79

Sd/RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V. JUDGE

¶80

ps/25/11/16

Farhad Kasim Rahman v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Farhad Kasim Rahman 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

Pramod Kumar Vs Sub Inspector of Police

Rajan Vs the State of Kerala

Siva Prasad Vs State of Kerala

Chappan Puthiya Purayil Moosan Kunhi Vs State of Kerala

George Vs State

Binu Krishnan Vs State of Kerala