Allowed

Sabeer v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC27 Jun 2017Crl.MC/3166/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court quashed criminal proceedings against five accused persons who were alleged to have committed offences under various sections of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution agreed to quash the proceedings following a settlement between the victim and the accused.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings in S.C. No. 21 of 2016 are quashed; Sessions Judge to pass appropriate orders for disposal if material objects were produced.

Sabeer Vs State of Kerala — Quashing and FIR | Kerala HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.ABRAHAM MATHEW

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF JUNE 2017/6TH ASHADHA, 1939

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 3166 of 2017 ()

¶6

SC.NO. 21/2016 OF ASSISTANT SESSIONS COURT, KOZHIKODE CRIME NO. 668/2014 OF BALUSSERY POLICE STATION,KOZHIKODE DISTRICT

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED:

¶8

1. SABEER, AGED 28 YEARS, S/O. MOIDEEN KUTTY, THENJERI HOUSE, KOODATHAI BAZAR, THAMARASSERY, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.

¶9

2. SAVAD, AGED 25 YEARS, S/O. MOHAMMED, ALAPPADIMMAL, KADUKKILUMMARAM, THAMARASSERY, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.

¶10

3. BASITH, AGED 27 YEARS, S/O. KASIM, ALAMPATTIL HOUSE, THAMARASSERY, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.

¶11

4. AYYOOB, AGED 28 YEARS, S/O. MUHAMMED, KAYYELIKUNNUMMAL HOUSE, KUDUKKILUMMARAM, THAMARASSERY, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.

¶12

5. SALAM, AGED 27 YEARS, S/O. MAMMOOTTY, ARETAKKUNNUMMAL HOUSE, THAMARASSERY, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.

¶13

*ADDL.6TH PETITIONER IMPLEADED

¶14

*ADDL.P6. MOIDEENKUTTY, AGED 59 YEARS,S/O AHMED KUTTY HAJI, THENJERI HOUSE, KOODATHAI P.O, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN -673 573

¶15

*ADDL.P6 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 05/06/2017 IN CRL.MA.NO.6216/2017.

¶16

BY ADV. SRI.LUIZ GODWIN D COUTH

¶17

2/-

¶18

-2-

¶19

Crl.MC.No. 3166 of 2017 ()

¶20

RESPONDENT(S)/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:

¶21

1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, REPRESENTING THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, BALUSSERY POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.

¶22

2. RAJFAL,

¶23

S/O. MUHAMMED, AGED 33 YEARS, EDATHILKUNNUMMAL HOUSE, IYYAD P.O., KOZHIKODE DISTRICT - 673 573.

¶24

R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.T.R.RENJITH R2 BY ADV. SRI.S.JUSTUS

¶25

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27-06-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶26

sts

¶27

Crl.MC.No. 3166 of 2017 ()

¶28

APPENDIX

¶29

PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES:

¶30

ANNEXURE A THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO. 668/2014 OF BALUSSERY POLICE STATION. ANNEXURE B THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO. 668/2014 OF BALUSSERY POLICE STATION. ANNEXURE C THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE WOUND CERTIFICATE. ANNEXURE D THE ORIGINAL OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶31

RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES:

NIL

/TRUE COPY/

P.A.TO JUDGE

sts

K. ABRAHAM MATHEW, J.

¶37

Crl. M.C. No.3166 of 2017

¶38

Dated this the 27^th day of June, 2017

¶39

O R D E R

¶40

Petitioners are the accused in S.C. No.21 of 2016 on the

¶41

file of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Kozhikode. They have alleged to have committed offences under Sections 143, 147, 148, 308, 323, 324, 341 & 427 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶42

The second respondent is the victim. It is submitted that the matter has been settled and the proceedings in the trial Court may be quashed.

¶43

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the 2^nd respondent and the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶44

The second respondent has appeared through counsel and filed an affidavit stating that the matter has been settled and he has no objection to the proceedings in the trial Court being quashed. I am satisfied that. The allegation of settlement

¶45

Crl. M.C. No.3166 of 2017

¶46

¶47

is true and no public interest is involved in this case.

¶48

In the result, this Crl.M.C. is allowed. The proceedings in

¶49

S.C. No.21 of 2016 on the file of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Kozhikode are quashed. If any material objects have been produced in the case, the learned Sessions Judge may pass appropriate orders for the disposal.

¶50

Sd/-

¶51

K. ABRAHAM MATHEW, JUDGE.

¶52

//True Copy//

¶53

P.A. to Judge

¶54

sp/27/06/17

Sabeer v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sabeer 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Baiju.T.D Vs State of Kerala

Vijayan Vs State of Kerala

Asif. M.P Vs State of Kerala

Fathima Vs State of Kerala

Basheer M.M. Vs State of Kerala

Nirmal Kandelwal Vs State of Kerala