Allowed

Habeeb v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC23 Nov 2016Crl.MC/7480/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala exercised inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC to quash pending criminal proceedings against petitioners accused of affray and assault. This was based on an amicable settlement between the injured parties and the accused, applicable as the offences were not grave or serious.

What did the court decide?

Criminal proceedings under C.C. No. 236 of 2016 and annexure A2 final report against petitioners are quashed.

Habeeb Vs State of Kerala — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF NOVEMBER 2016/2ND AGRAHAYANA, 1938

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 7480 of 2016 ()

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC 236/2016 of J.M.F.C - III (TEMPORARY SPECIAL COURT),KOLLAM DATED

¶7

CRIME NO. 539/2012 OF KOLLAM WEST POLICE STATION , KOLLAM

¶8

PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED 1,3,4:

¶9

HABEEB AGED 26, S/O.ABDUL RAHIM, THOTTAHIL VEEDU, KOTTAMKATA VILLAGE, KERALAPURAM CHERI, KUMILIYIL JAYANTHY COLONY KOLLAM DISTRICT.

¶10

RAMMOHAN AGED 29, S/O.MOHANKUMAR, AMBATTU VEEDU, VIKASNAGAR-1, MANAYIL KULANGARA CHERI, KOLLAM WEST VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 3. PREMLAL AGED 32, S/O.RAGHUNATHAN, THODIYIL THEKKETHIL VEEDU, THANKASSERY KAVAL, P&RA, KOLLAM WEST VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT.

¶11

BY ADVS.SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR) SRI.K.R.ARUN KRISHNAN

¶12

RESPONDENT(S)/STATE OF KERALA AND DE FACTO COMPLAINANT AND INJURED: -------------------------------------------------------------------

¶13

THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE WEST POLICE STATION, KOLLAM THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682301.

¶14

RATHEESH AGED 31, S/O.THANKAPPAN PILLAI, KAYALVARAM PUTHUVAL PUTHEN VEEDU, THEVALLI KAYAL VARAM, MATHILIL CHERRI, THRIKKADAVOOR VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT-676001.

¶15

AJAYAN @ SUNIL AGED 37, S/O.PODIYAN, PUTHUVEL PUTHEN VEEDU, KAYAL KARAM, THEVALLI, MATHILIL CHERRI, THRIKKADAVOOR VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT-676001. R2-3 BY ADV. SRI.N.L.BITTO R BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, SRI.T.R.RENJITH

¶16

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23-11-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

CONTD...

¶18

:2:

¶19

Crl.MC.No. 7480 of 2016 ()

¶20

APPENDIX

¶21

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶22

ANNEXURE 1 A TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CR.539/12 OF KOLLAM WEST POLICE STATION DT.9-6-12.

¶23

ANNEXURE 2 A TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CC 236/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE JFCM TEMPORARY KOLLAM DT.19-5-14.

¶24

ANNEXURE 3 A TRUE COPY OF THE ADDL.STATEMENT GIVEN BY THE DE FACTO COMPLAINANT AND INJURED TO THE INVESTIGATION OFFICER DT.5-7-2012.

¶25

ANNEXURE 4 TRUE COPIES OF THE WOUND CERTIFICATES OF THE DE FACTO COMPLAINANT AND INJURED DT.7-6-12.

¶26

ANNEXURE 5 A TRUE COPY OF THE WOUND CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE MEDICAL OFFICER MATHA HOSPITAL, MATHILIL DT.10-6-16.

¶27

ANNEXURE 6 A TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT OF SETTLEMENT SWORN BY THE INJURED/R2 HEREIN DT.30-10-2016.

¶28

ANNEXURE 7 A TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT OF SETTLEMENT SWORN BY THE INJURED/R3 HEREIN DT.30-10-2016.

¶29

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE

SKS

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V, J

¶34

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

¶35

Crl.M.C. No. 7480 of 2016

¶36

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

¶37

Dated this the 23^rd day of November, 2016

¶38

O R D E R

¶39

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.

¶40

2.The petitioners herein are the accused Nos. 1, 3 and 4 in C.C. No. 236 of 2016 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate (Temporary), Kollam. They stand indicted under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 308, 341, 506(i) and 149 of the IPC. The 2^nd accused was a juvenile at the time of the commission of the offence and case against him is now pending before Juvenile Justice Board.

¶41

3.The prosecution allegation is that, on 06.06.2012 at 10.45 p.m, the accused on account of their previous enmity towards the de facto complainant, wrongfully restrained the

¶42

Crl.M.C. No. 7480 of 2016

¶43

¶44

respondents 2 and 3 and thereafter assaulted them

¶45

causing injuries.

¶46

4.Heard the submissions advanced.

¶47

5.The learned counsel appearing for the party respondents submits that the dispute between the parties has been amicably resolved. Attention of this Court is invited to the affidavits filed by them to buttress their submission . It is urged that the dispute is purely personal in nature and would not affect public peace or tranquillity. Summing up it is prayed that the criminal proceedings be terminated to promote peace and harmony.

¶48

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

¶49

Crl.M.C. No. 7480 of 2016 3

¶50

against the petitioners.

¶51

7.I have considered the submissions .

¶52

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

¶53

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

¶54

follows :

¶55

“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.”

¶56

9.The aforesaid dictum stands reiterated by the Apex Court

¶57

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

¶58

Crl.M.C. No. 7480 of 2016

¶59

¶60

466, the pertinent observations which are as under:

¶61

XXXXXXXXXXXX

¶62

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:

¶63

(i) ends of justice, or

¶64

(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.

¶65

xxxxxxx

¶66

xxxxxxx

¶67

10.The offence committed by the petitioners cannot be said

¶68

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

¶69

Crl.M.C. No. 7480 of 2016

¶70

¶71

conviction would be bleak.

¶72

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

¶73

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.

¶74

In the result, this petition will stand allowed. AnnexureA2 final report and all proceedings pursuant thereto against the petitioners now pending as C.C.No. 236 of 2016 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court (Temporary), Kollam are quashed.

¶75

Sd/RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V.

JUDGE

SKS

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE

Habeeb v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Habeeb 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

M.Shahjahan Vs State of Kerala

Chandran @ Hamsa Vs State of Kerala

Babu Ambalathingal Vs the State of Kerala

Linil Kumar.C.R Vs Food Safety Officer

V.S.Ganeshan Vs State of Kerala

C.K. Vijayan Vs State