Allowed

Mujeeb Rehman, v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC19 Mar 2019Crl.MC/1697/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings after finding that the accused and victim had settled their private dispute amicably, causing no public interest to be affected. The offences were personal, and continuing them would serve no purpose.

What did the court decide?

FIR and all further proceedings against the petitioner in Crime No.2628/2018 are quashed.

Mujeeb Rehman, Vs 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

TUESDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 / 28TH PHALGUNA, 1940

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 1697 of 2019

¶6

CRIME NO.2628/2018 OF PERUMBAVOOR POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT

¶7

PETITIONER:

¶8

MUJEEB REHMAN, AGED 46, S/O. MOOSA, MOOKKADA HOUSE, MUDICKAL P.O., PERUMBAVOOR.

¶9

BY ADVS. SRI.S.RENJITH SRI.S.UNNIKRISHNAN (NELLAD)

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

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

¶12

2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER, PERUMBAVOOR POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-683542.

¶13

3 V.M.ALIYAR, AGED 68 YEARS, S/O. MEERAN, VADAKKEKUDY HOUSE, VALLAM KARA, CHELAMATTOM VILLAGE, PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-683542.

¶14

BY ADV. SRI.JACOB E SIMON

¶15

OTHER PRESENT:

¶16

SRI. RAMESH CHAND-PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶17

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19.03.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

CRL.MC:1697/2019

ORDER

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

¶22

The petitioner herein is the accused in Crime No.2628 of 2018 registered at the Perumbavoor Police Station. In the aforesaid crime, he is charged for having committed offences punishable under Sections 341, 506, 384 r/w. Section 34 of the IPC.

¶23

The 3^rd respondent herein is the de facto complainant. There were monetary transactions between the petitioner and the 3^rd respondent. It is alleged that at the instance of the petitioner, certain strangers intercepted the vehicle of the de facto complainant on 17.10.2018 and threatened him with dire consequences, if the demand of the petitioner for more interest was not met with.

¶24

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the party respondent and the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶25

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the victim and the offender have arrived at a compromise and narrating the said fact, the victim has filed an affidavit before this Court. According to the learned counsel, the records would reveal that no serious injuries were sustained by the victim. The termination of proceedings would resolve a festering private dispute between the

¶26

CRL.MC:1697/2019

¶27

¶28

parties and it is prayed that the proceedings be quashed.

¶29

The learned counsel appearing for the 3^rd respondent would also refer to the affidavit 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.

¶30

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

¶31

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.

¶32

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

¶33

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

¶34

CRL.MC:1697/2019

¶35

¶36

SCC 466] and Yogendra Yadav and Others v. State of Jharkhand and Another [(2014) 9 SCC 653] .

¶37

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. 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.

¶38

In the result, this petition is allowed. Annexure-A1 FIR in Crime No.2628 of 2018 registered at the Perumbavoor Police Station and all further proceedings pursuant thereto against the petitioner are quashed.

¶39

SD/-

¶40

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V., JUDGE

¶41

krj

¶42

//TRUE COPY// P.A.TO JUDGE

¶43

CRL.MC:1697/2019

¶44

¶45