Allowed

Simithiyas v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC8 Dec 2016Crl.MC/7542/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a Criminal Misc. Case, the High Court of Kerala allowed a petition under Section 482 CrPC to quash pending criminal proceedings for assault and criminal intimidation. Relying on settled precedents, the Court quashed the charges after finding that the dispute had been amicably resolved and persisting with prosecution would be an abuse of process.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of pending criminal proceedings (C.P. No.167 of 2015) including the final report and all subsequent proceedings against the petitioners.

Simithiyas Vs the 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

THURSDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2016/17TH AGRAHAYANA, 1938

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 7542 of 2016 ()

¶6

AGAINST CP 167/2015 of J.M.F.C.-II,HOSDRUG CRIME NO. 568/2015 OF BEKAL POLICE STATION , KASARGOD

¶7

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO. 1- 3:

¶8

1. SIMITHIYAS.A.,

¶9

S/O.C.M.ABBAS AGED 23 YEARS, SINAN MANZIL,

¶10

NEAR ANEZ MOSQUE, KARUVAKODE,

¶11

MOUVVAL, PALLIKKARA VILLAGE, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.

¶12

2. SIDDIQUE. Y

¶13

S/O.YOUSUF K.A., AGED 22 YEARS, RESIDING AT K.A.HOUSE,

¶14

BEKAL KUNNIL, PALLIKKARA VILLAGE,

¶15

KASARAGOD DISTRICT.

¶16

3. FASID M @ FASI

¶17

S/O.MUHAMMED KUNHI, AGED 20 YEARS,

¶18

RESIDING AT SHAFEENA MANZIL,

¶19

NEAR THACHANGAD HIGH SCHOOL, PANAYAL VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.

¶20

BY ADVS.SRI.T.MADHU SRI.SHAHID AZEEZ

¶21

RESPONDENT(S):

¶22

1. THE STATE OF KERALA THROUGH THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, BEKAL POLICE STATION, KASARAGOD DISTRICT,

¶23

REPRESETNED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM 682 031.

¶24

2. CHANDRADAS.P AGED 14 YEARS, S/O.CHANDRAN, RESIDING AT KUNDOOCHI HOUSE, PANAYAL VILLAG,E HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT, MINOR, REPRESETNED BY HIS FATHER AND GUARDIAN CHANDRAN, S/O.KURUVAN, AGED 56 YEARS, RESIDING AT 'KUNDOOCHI HOUSE', PANAYAL VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.

¶25

R2 BY ADV. SMT.G.SANGEETHA R BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶26

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 0812-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶27

Crl.MC.No. 7542 of 2016 () ---------------------------

¶28

APPENDIX

¶29

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶30

----------------------ANNEXURE A1 THE TRUE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO. 568/2015 OF BEKAL POLICE STATION

¶31

ANNEXURE A2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO. 568/2015 OF BEKAL POLICE STATION

¶32

ANNEXURE A3 THE AFFIDAVIT DATED 31.10.2016 SWORN IN BY THE FATHER OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT

¶33

ANNEXURE A4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO OF EVIDENCE IN CRIME NO. 568/2015 OF BEKAL POLICE STATION

¶34

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS

¶35

//TRUE COPY//

¶36

PA TO JUDGE

¶37

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V, J

¶38

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

¶39

Crl.M.C. No.7542 of 2016

¶40

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

¶41

Dated this the 8^th day of December, 2016

¶42

O R D E R

¶43

~~~~~~~

¶44

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.

¶45

2.The petitioners herein are the accused Nos.1 to 3 in C.P. 167 of 2015 on the files of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-II, Hosdurg. In the aforesaid case, the petitioners face indictment under Sections 341 and 323 read with Section 34 of the IPC. The 2^nd respondent herein is the de facto complaint, who is a minor.

¶46

3.The prosecution allegation is that, on 13.8.2015 at about

¶47

Crl.M.C.7542/2016

¶48

¶49

4.15 p.m., the petitioners herein in furtherance of their common intention wrongfully restrained the

¶50

2^nd respondent near to the Thanchangad Government High School and assaulted him with their hands.

¶51

4.Heard the submissions advanced.

¶52

5.It is submitted by the learned counsel that pursuant to the registration of the crime, the disputes have been amicably resolved between the petitioners and the father of the 2^nd respondent. The father of the 2^nd respondent has sworn to an affidavit, which is produced as AnnexureA3, wherein he has stated that the entire disputes have been settled.

¶53

6.The learned Public Prosecutor was directed to obtain specific instructions and to record the statement of the victim as well as his parents. Learned Public Prosecutor on instructions submits that the statement of the victim

¶54

Crl.M.C.7542/2016

¶55

¶56

and his family members have been recorded and the assertion that the matter has been resolved is true and genuine.

¶57

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

¶58

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 :

¶59

“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.”

¶60

Crl.M.C.7542/2016

¶61

¶62

8.The aforesaid dictum stands reiterated by the Apex Court

¶63

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

¶64

466], the pertinent observations which are as under:

¶65

XXXXXXXXXXXX

¶66

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:

¶67

(i) ends of justice, or

¶68

(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.

¶69

xxxxxxx

¶70

9.The offence committed by the petitioners cannot be said

¶71

to be grave and serious having ingredients of extreme mental depravity. It also does not appear that the offence

¶72

in this case will have a serious impact on the society. It is

¶73

Crl.M.C.7542/2016

¶74

¶75

felt that quashing of proceedings on account of

¶76

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.

¶77

10.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.

¶78

In the result, this petition will stand allowed. Annexure-A2 final report and all proceedings pursuant thereto against the petitioners now pending as C.P.No.167 of 2015 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-

¶79

II, Hosdurg are quashed. Sd/-

¶80

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V. JUDGE

¶81

ps/9/12/2016

Simithiyas v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Simithiyas 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Salim Vs State of Kerala

Stella Stephen Vs State of Kerala

Muhammed Salman Vs State of Kerala

Puthurpally Muslim Jamaath Committee Vs State Police Chief

Serin Vs Ajmal

Mohammad Mansoor Abdul Rahiman Vs the Deputy Superintendent of Police