Allowed

Shefrin Sheriff v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC8 Mar 2019Crl.MC/1429/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed a petition under Section 482 CrPC to quash criminal proceedings initiated against accused persons for offences under various IPC sections. The Court held that the dispute was personal, the charges were benign, and a genuine compromise was reached by the parties, making the continuation of prosecution pointless and oppressive.

What did the court decide?

The proceedings (C.C. No. 117 of 2018) against the petitioners are quashed. Annexure-A (final report) and all further proceedings are to be treated as quashed.

Shefrin Sheriff Vs the State of Kerala — Quashing and FIR | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 08TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 / 17TH PHALGUNA, 1940

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 1429 of 2019

¶6

CC 117/2018 of CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA

¶7

CRIME NO. 1255/2018 OF Pathanamthitta Police Station, Pathanamthitta

¶8

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.1 TO 3:

¶9

1 SHEFRIN SHERIFF, AGED 22 YEARS, S/O. SHERIFF, ALANKARATHU HOUSE, KULASEKHARAPETTAH, KUMBAZHA MURI, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.

¶10

2 SHAMEER S. SHERIFF, AGED 27 YEARS, S/O. SHERIFF, ALANKARATHU HOUSE, KULASEKHARAPETTAH, KUMBAZHA MURI, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.

¶11

3 ALTHAF HUSSAIN, AGED 20 YEARS, S/O. ZAKIR HUSSAIN, ALANKARATHU KUTTIPILLA HOUSE, KULASEKHARAPETTAH, KUMBAZHA MURI, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.

¶12

BY ADVS. SRI.S.SHANAVAS KHAN SMT.S.INDU

¶13

RESPONDENTS/STATE/COMPLAINANT/INJURED:

¶14

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

¶15

2 FAKRUDEEN ALI AHAMED, AGED 41 YERS, S/O.SHAHUL HAMEED, ALANKARATHU HOUSE, KULASEKHARAPETTAH, KUMBAZHA MURI, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. PIN-689 545.

¶16

3 AMEER, AGED 43 YEARS, S/O. SHAHUL HAMEED, ALANKARATHU HOUSE, KULASEKHARAPETTAH, KUMBAZHA MURI, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT-689 545.

¶17

Crl.MC.No. 1429 of 2019 2

¶18

4 SALEENA AMEER, AGED 37 YEARS, W/O. AMEER, ALANKARATHU HOUSE, KULASEKHARAPETTAH, KUMBAZHA MURI, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT-689 545.

¶19

5 ANEESH, AGED 18 YEARS, S/O. ALI SAMBRI, ALANKARATHU HOUSE, KULASEKHARAPETTA, KUMBAZHA MURI, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT-689 545.

¶20

R1 BY SRI RAMESH CHAND, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR R2 TO R5 BY ADV. SRI.R. RAJESH

¶21

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08.03.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

Crl.MC.No. 1429 of 2019 3

¶23

ORDER

¶24

This petition is filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.

¶25

The petitioners herein are the accused Nos.1 to 3 in C.C. No.117 of 2018 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Pathanamthitta. In the aforesaid case, they are being proceeded against for having committed offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 452, 294(b) and 324 r/w. Section 149 of the IPC.

¶26

The allegation is that on 08.06.2018 at 9.15 p.m., the petitioners formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and in prosecution of their common object, wrongfully restrained the party respondents and attacked them with weapons causing serious injuries.

¶27

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, the party respondents and the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶28

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the victims and the offenders have arrived at a compromise and narrating the said fact, the victims have filed affidavits before this Court. According to the learned counsel, the records would reveal that no serious injuries were sustained by the victims. The termination of

¶29

Crl.MC.No. 1429 of 2019 4

¶30

proceedings would resolve a festering private dispute between the parties and it is prayed that the proceedings be quashed.

¶31

The learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2 to 5 would also refer to the affidavits and it is submitted that the parties have not only buried the hatchet, but also have decided to live peacefully in future. According to the learned counsel, no purpose would be served in dragging these proceedings.

¶32

The learned Public Prosecutor, on instructions, submitted that the petitioners are not persons with criminal antecedents and that the State has no grievance in quashing the proceedings as no public interest is involved.

¶33

It is thus borne out from the submissions made at the bar that the parties have amicably settled their disputes on their own free will and without any kind of pressure, influence or coercion. The compromise, it is felt, is voluntary and genuine, and can be acted upon.

¶34

9. In Gian Singh v. State of Punjab [(2012) 10 SCC 303],

¶35

the Apex Court has held that in appropriate cases, the High Court can

¶36

Crl.MC.No. 1429 of 2019 5

¶37

take note of the amicable resolution of disputes between the victim and the wrongdoer to put an end to the criminal proceedings. This view was reiterated in Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab. [(2014) 6 SCC 466] and Yogendra Yadav and Others v. State of Jharkhand and Another [(2014) 9 SCC 653] .

¶38

Having considered the submissions advanced and on perusing the records, it appears that the offences are entirely personal in nature and do not affect public peace or tranquility. The injuries allegedly inflicted by the petitioners cannot be said to be grave and serious having ingredients of extreme mental depravity. It is also felt that quashing of proceedings on account of compromise would bring about peace. In a case such as the instant one, even if the prosecution is allowed to continue, it would not serve any purpose as the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak. It can only result in putting the de facto complainant and the accused to unwanted oppression and prejudice. Settlement will augur well for the interest of the community and will enable the parties to live in peace and harmony.

¶39

Crl.MC.No. 1429 of 2019 6

¶40

In the result, this petition is allowed. Annexure-A final report and all further proceedings pursuant thereto against the petitioners now pending as C.C. No.117 of 2018 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Pathanamthitta are quashed.

¶41

Sd/-

¶42

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V., JUDGE

¶43

DSV/11.3.19

¶44

Crl.MC.No. 1429 of 2019

¶45

¶46

APPENDIX

¶47