Allowed

Muhammed Dhakkir v. Vipin.M

Kerala HC15 Jan 2018Crl.MC/22/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala quashed the First Information Report and all further criminal proceedings against five accused persons in a case involving affray and assault. The court observed that the matter had been amicably settled between the complainants and the petitioners, rendering the trial unnecessary.

What did the court decide?

The First Information Report and all further proceedings in C.C.No.1338 of 2014 are quashed.

Muhammed Dhakkir Vs Vipin.M — Quashing and FIR | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.KEMAL PASHA

¶4

MONDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF JANUARY 2018 / 25TH POUSHA, 1939

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 22 of 2018

¶6

CC 1338/2014 of JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT,PAYYANNUR

¶7

CRIME NO. 1215/2014 OF PAYYANNUR POLICE STATION , KANNUR

¶8

PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED NO.1 TO 5

¶9

1 MUHAMMED DHAKKIR, AGED 23 YEARS, S/O SAINAL ABID K.P, A.C. HOUSE,BYE PASS ROAD, PAYYANNUR P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶10

2 NAZAF NAJEEB,AGED 23 YEARS, S/O ABDUL WAJEES, K.P HOUSE,PERUMBA,BEHIND SKY GOLD JEWELRY, PAYYANNUR P.O, KANNUR DISTRICT

¶11

3 AHAMED NISAM. M.C, AGED 24 YEARS, S/O ZUBAIR, M.C HOUSE,PERUMBA, PAYYANNUR P.O, KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶12

4 MUNEER.A,AGED 24 YEARS, S/O ABDUL KHADAR, AKKARAKKARAN HOUSE BYPASS JUNCTION, PERUMBA, PAYYANNUR P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶13

5 ZAHID. S.P, AGED 23 YEARS, S/O ABOOBACKER. M, KOROM ROAD,PERUMBA, PAYYANNUR P.O, KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶14

BY ADVS.SRI.ZUBAIR PULIKKOOL

¶15

SRI.P.S.BINU

¶16

RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT:

¶17

1. VIPIN.M,AGED 22 YEARS, S/O. BHASKARAN, MADAYAMBATH HOUSE, PALIYERI, KARIVELLUR AMSOM, KANNUR DISTRICT- 670521

¶18

2. SANAL.M,AGED 22 YEARS, S/O SOMAN, MADACHERI HOUSE, ELAMBACHI, THEKKE TRIKKARIPUR AMSOM, KASARAGOD DISTRICT, PIN: 670522

¶19

PBS

¶20

Crl.MC.No. 22 of 2018

¶21

3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,

¶22

HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM- 682031.

¶23

R1-R2 BY ADV. SMT.A.P.RUFAIJA

¶24

R3 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. C.S.HRITWIK

¶25

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15-01-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶26

PBS

¶27

Crl.MC.No. 22 of 2018 ()

¶28

APPENDIX

¶29

PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES

¶30

ANNEXURE I: COPY OF THE F.I.R & POLICE CHARGE IN CRIME NO.

¶31

1215/2014 PAYYANNUR POLICE STATION.

¶32

ANNEXURE II: SWORN AFFIDAVIT OF 1ST RESPONDENT

¶33

ANNEXURE III: SWORN AFFIDAVIT OF 2ND RESPONDENT

¶34

RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES

NIL

/TRUE COPY/

PA TO JUDGE

PBS

B.KEMAL PASHA, J.

¶40

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

¶41

Crl.M.C.No.22 of 2018

¶42

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

¶43

Dated this the 15^th day of January, 2018

¶44

O R D E R

¶45

Petitioners are the accused in C.C.No.1338 of 2014 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Payyannur, which has arisen from Crime No.1215 of 2014 of the Payyannur Police Station, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 324 r/w Section 149 IPC.

¶46

It seems that the matter has been amicably settled between the parties.

¶47

On going through the facts and circumstances of the case, it seems that the matter can be permitted to be settled. It has been reported that no criminal antecedents have been reported against the petitioners. The defacto complainant and the other affected person have filed Annexures-II and III affidavits affirming that the matter has been amicably settled between them and the petitioners and they have no complaints against the petitioners. Considering the fact that the matter has already been settled amicably

¶48

Crl.M.C.No.22 of 2018 2

¶49

between the parties, this Court is satisfied that no purpose would be served in proceeding with the trial of the case. Matters being so, Annexure-I First Information Report and all further proceedings in C.C.No.1338 of 2014 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Payyannur, which has arisen from Crime No.1215 of 2014 of the Payyannur Police Station, as against the petitioners, are liable to be quashed.

¶50

In the result, this Crl.M.C. is allowed and Annexure-I First Information Report and all further proceedings in C.C.No.1338 of 2014 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Payyannur, which has arisen from Crime No.1215 of 2014 of the Payyannur Police Station, as against the petitioners, are hereby quashed.

¶51

Sd/-

¶52

B.KEMAL PASHA JUDGE

¶53

Bb/15/1/2018

¶54

[True copy]

¶55

P.A to Judge

Muhammed Dhakkir v. Vipin.M

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Muhammed Dhakkir v. Vipin.M

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

Unni Vs State of Kerala

Raveendranathan Prabha Vs Enforcement Officer

Renjith Vs State of Kerala

Bijukuttan Madhavan Vs State of Kerala

Arun Vs State of Kerala

Rohith Vs State of Kerala