Allowed

Junaid.N v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC20 Feb 2017Crl.MC/938/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a quashing petition, the High Court observed that the dispute between parties was settled via mediation, no surviving grievance existed, and the accused had no other criminal involvement. The court held no public importance arose and allowed the writ petition, quashing further proceedings.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Miscellaneous Case was allowed and all further proceedings arising from Crime No. 803 of 2016 stood quashed.

Junaid.N 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 SUNIL THOMAS

¶4

MONDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2017/1ST PHALGUNA, 1938

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 938 of 2017 ()

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC 1069/2016 of J.M.F.C.,PAYYANNUR CRIME NO. 803/2016 OF PAYANGADI POLICE STATION , KANNUR

¶7

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO.1 TO 4:

¶8

1. JUNAID N. AGED 33 YEARS, S/O.ABDULLA, NERIYAMMADATH HOUSE, MADAI AMSOM, PUTHIYANGADI, KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶9

2. JABBAR T. AGED 27 YEARS, S/O.KUNHAMMED, NEERIYAMMADATH HOUSE, MADAI AMSOM, PUTHIYANGADI, KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶10

3. MUTHALEEB N. AGED 29 YEARS, S/O.KUNHAMMED, NEERIYAMMADATH HOUSE, MADAI AMSOM, PUTHIYANGADI, KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶11

4. SUHAIB K.C. AGED 30 YEARS, S/O.IBRAHIM, SAINABA MANZIL, MADAI AMSOM, PUTHIYANGADI, KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶12

BY ADVS.SRI.TITUS MANI

¶13

SRI.P.A.JACOB SRI.BINNY THOMAS

¶14

RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:

¶15

1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031.

¶16

2. RASHEED K. S/O.V.P.ABDULLA, AGED 37, KOVVAPURATH HOUSE, MADAI AMSOM, KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶17

R2 BY ADV. SMT.P.SREESHA

¶18

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR:SRI T R RANJITH

¶19

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20-02-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

Crl.MC.No. 938 of 2017 ()

¶21

APPENDIX

¶22

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶23

ANNEXURE A1 A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.803/2016 DATED 30-5-2016 OF PAZHAYANGADI POLICE.

¶24

ANNEXURE A2 A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO.803/2016 DATED 30-5-2016 OF PAZHAYANGADI POLICE STATION.

¶25

ANNEXURE A3 TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT IN ORIGINAL FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶26

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:NIL

¶27

True Copy / P A to Judge

¶28

SUNIL THOMAS, J.

¶29

=================

¶30

Crl.M.C.No.938 of 2017

¶31

=================

¶32

Dated this the 20^th day of February, 2017

¶33

ORDER

¶34

Petitioners are accused Nos.1 to 4 arising from Crime No.803 of 2016 of Pazhayangadi Police Station for offences punishable under sections 341, 323 and 324 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code.

¶35

It was alleged by the de facto complainant that on 27.05.2016 at 3 p.m, accused intercepted the de facto complainant and inflicted injury using a wooden rafter. Crime was registered. On the basis of the investigation conducted, final report was laid as C.C.No.1069 of 2016 of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Payyannur.

¶36

Petitioners contend that the dispute with the second respondent/de facto complainant has been settled evidenced by Annexure-A3 affidavit and that, they have no surviving grievance. Learned counsel for the second respondent invited my attention to Annexure-A3 affidavit, wherein, the settlement by mediation has been referred to and the parties have resolved not to pursue the case.

¶37

Crl.M.C.938/17

¶38

¶39

Having considered the nature of allegation and the submission of the learned Public Prosecutor that the petitioners are not involved in any other crime and that, the parties have resolved the dispute, I am inclined to hold that no purpose will be served by continuing the proceedings. This is for the further reason that the nature of allegation disclosed only a personal dispute and no larger question of public importance arises. Hence, I am inclined to allow the Crl.M.C quashing all the further proceedings.

¶40

In the result, Crl.M.C is allowed. All further proceedings arising from Crime No.803 of 2016 of Pazhayangadi Police Station stand quashed.

¶41

Sd/-

¶42

SUNIL THOMAS Judge

¶43

Sbna/20/2/17

¶44

True Copy / P A to Judge

Junaid.N v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Junaid.N 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

Vijayakumar Vs State of Kerala

Shahabas Mohammed Vs the Senior Intelligence Officer

Mohammed Jabir Vs State of Kerala

Muhammed M.K. Vs State of Kerala

Murali C.P Vs State of Kerala

Akhil Vs State of Kerala