Allowed

Rashid C v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC1 Nov 2017Crl.MC/6669/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court at Ernakulam allowed a criminal miscellaneous petition to quash proceedings against accused facing charges of assault and attempted murder. The Court held that disputes were amicably resolved, compensation was paid, and victims condoned the conduct, resulting in no larger public importance issues.

What did the court decide?

Crl.M.C. No. 6669 of 2017 allowed and all further proceedings in S.C. 641/2014 before Additional District and Sessions Court 1, Kasaragod quashed.

Rashid C Vs State of Kerala — Kerala HC (2017) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF NOVEMBER 2017/10TH KARTHIKA, 1939 Crl.MC.No. 6669 of 2017 () ---------------------------

¶5

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN SC 641/2014 of ADDL. DISTICT & SESSIONS COURT - I, KASARAGOD CRIME NO. 201/2013 OF HOSDURG POLICE STATION, KASARAGOD

¶6

PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED:

¶7

1. RASHID C., AGED 32 YEARS, S/O.SHAFEEQ, 'CHEENAMMADATH HOUSE', PUNCHAVI, HOSDURG VILLAGE, KASARAGOD DISTRICT 2. RASHEED M AGED 29 YEARS, S/O.ABOOBAKKAR, 'FARZANA MANZIL', MURIYANAVI, KANHANGAD VILLAGE, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 3. SUNIL KUMAR K.V AGED 42 YEARS, S/O.BHARATHAN, 'SUSHAMA NILAYAM', KALLAMTHODU, AVIYIL, HOSDURG VILLAGE, KASARAGOD DISTRICT 4. MAJEED M AGED 39 YEARS, S/O.LATE AHAMMED KUNJI, 'MOULAKIRIYATH HOUSE', KALLOORAVI, MUNDATHODU, HOSDURG VILLAGE, KASARAGOD DISTRICT

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.P.K.SUBHASH

¶9

RESPONDENT(S)/STATE:

¶10

1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶11

2. YAKOOB AGED 56 YEARS, S/O.SAVAN, RESIDING AT P.V HOUSE, ARANGADI KANHANGAD VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.

¶12

Crl.MC.No. 6669 of 2017 ()

¶13

3. MUSAFAR ALI AGED 20 YEARS, S/O.C.ABDUL KALAM, RESIDING AT 'NILANKARA' ARANGADI, KANHANGAD VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.

¶14

4. K.K. RAMSHEED AGED 23 YEARS, S/O.ISMAIL, RESIDING AT K.K. HOUSE, ARANGADI, KANHANGAD VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.

¶15

5. SOUJA AGED 35 YEARS, W/O.ABDUL KHADER, RESIDING AT P.V. HOUSE, ARANGADI, KANHANGAD VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.

¶16

6. AFSATH, AGED 44 YEARS, W/O.N.P. IBRAHIM, RESIDING AT P.V HOUSE, ARANGADI, KANHANGAD VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.

¶17

7. KHADEEJA AGED 49 YEARS, W/O.HANEEFA P.V., RESIDING AT P.V HOUSE, ARANGADI, KANHANGAD VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.

¶18

8. RASEENA P., AGED 31 YEARS, W/O.FAIZAL, RESIDING AT P.V.HOUSE, ARANGADI, KANHANGAD VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. R2-R8 BY ADV. SMT.S.ANU R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.AMJAD ALI

¶19

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01-11-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

Crl.MC.No. 6669 of 2017 ()

¶21

APPENDIX

¶22

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶23

ANNEXURE A1	CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO. 201/2013 OF HOSDURG POLICE STATION
ANNEXURE AII	CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT
ANNEXURE AIII	A TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN TO BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 ENDORSING THE FACTUM OF COMPOUNDING OF THE SAID OFFENCES AND THE SETTLEMENT OF THE DISPUTES
ANNEXURE AIV	A TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN TO BY THE RESPONDENT NO.3 ENDORSING THE FACTUM OF COMPOUNDING OF THE SAID OFFENCES AND THE SETTLEMENT OF THE DISPUTES.
ANNEXURE AV	A TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN TO BY THE RESPONDENT NO.4 ENDORSING THE FACTUM OF COMPOUNDING OF THE SAID OFFENCES AND THE SETTLEMENT OF THE DISPUTES
ANNEXURE AVI	A TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN TO BY THE RESPONDENT NO. 5 ENDORSING THE FACTUM OF COMPOUNDING OF THE SAID OFFENCES AND THE SETTLEMENT OF THE DISPUTES.
ANNEXURE AVII	A TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN TO BY THE RESPONDENT NO. 6 ENDORSING THE FACTUM OF COMPOUNDING OF THE SAID OFFENCES AND THE SETTLEMENT OF THE DISPUTES.
ANNEXURE AVIII	A TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN TO BY THE RESPONDENT NO. 7 ENDORSING THE FACTUM OF COMPOUNDING OF THE SAID OFFENCES AND THE SETTLEMENT OF THE DISPUTES
ANNEXURE A IX	A TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN TO BY THE RESPONDENT NO. 8 ENDORSING THE FACTUM OF COMPOUNDING OF THE SAID OFFENCES AND THE SETTLEMENT OF THE ISPUTES

¶24

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : NIL

/TRUE COPY/

P. A. TO JUDGE

SUNIL THOMAS, J.

Crl. M. C. No. 6669 of 2017

¶30

Dated this the 1^st day of November, 2017

¶31

O R D E R

¶32

The petitioners are the accused in Crime No.201/2013 of Hosdurg Police Station, Kasaragod District for offences punishable under Sections 452, 323, 354, 341, 324, 308, 326 & 307 read with Section 34 of IPC. The prosecution alleged that, due to previous enmity, on 13.02.2013 at about 7.30 p.m., the accused trespassed into the house of the de facto complainant. The 1^st accused entered the house, wrongfully restrained CW1 and injured him using a knife. It is stated that, he sustained an injury near the left ear as well as on the back side of the head. The 2^nd accused injured CW2 and inflicted an injury on his neck. 2^nd accused caused an injury on the head of CW3 also. Pursuant to the complaint lodged, crime was registered and after investigation final report was filed. The matter is now pending as S.C. 641/2014 before the Additional District and Sessions Court 1, Kasaragod.

¶33

The petitioners have approached this Court contending that the disputes have been amicably resolved between the parties and that they have no grievance against each other. It

¶34

Crl. M. C. No. 6669 of 2017 2

¶35

was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that they have satisfactorily compensated the injured due to the unfortunate incident that had happened. It was also stated that the incident was not a premeditated one to warrant a highly punitive action. Learned counsel for the respondents 2 to 8, who are the victims and the de facto complainant submitted that they have resolved their disputes and that they are satisfactorily compensated. It was asserted that they propose to give quietus to the dispute, though they had sustained injuries on vital parts of the body.

¶36

The learned Public Prosecutor on instructions submitted that the disputes have been resolved and the de facto complainant has given a statement reiterating the settlement.

¶37

Learned counsel for the respondents 2 to 8 relied on Annexures A III to A IX to support their contention that the disputes have been resolved to their satisfaction.

¶38

It appears that the three accused have used weapons. They have inflicted injuries on the neck of three persons. It is true that, offences under Sections 307 & 308 have been alleged. Though apparently it may appear to be a serious incident having manifestations of larger public importance, a close perusal of the

¶39

Crl. M. C. No. 6669 of 2017 3

¶40

available materials indicate that the incident arose as a sequel to an earlier monetary transaction. Though a knife was used and injuries were inflicted on the neck, very grevious injuries are not seen inflicted. The petitioners have no criminal antecedents. The respondents 2 to 8 are satisfied with the settlement arrived at between the parties and have also condoned the conduct of the petitioners herein. There is nothing to show that the parties have criminal antecedents.

¶41

Having considered these facts in detail, I am satisfied that larger issues of public importance do not arise and considering the entire facts, it is in the interest of justice of both parties concerned to give a quietus to the entire proceedings.

¶42

Hence, Crl.M.C. is allowed. All further proceedings in S.C. 641/2014 before the Additional District and Sessions Court 1, Kasaragod stand quashed.

¶43

Sd/-

¶44

SUNIL THOMAS, JUDGE.

¶45

Rashid C v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rashid C 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

Vinod Vs State of Kerala

Saiju Vs State of Kerala

Unais.K.P Vs State of Kerala

Sherly Baby Vs State of Kerala

Geetha Vs State of Kerala

S.Abdullakunhi Vs State of Kerala