Allowed

Muhammedali M., v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC25 Jun 2019Crl.MC/2385/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed criminal proceedings initiated against four accused persons for offences under the IPC following a written compromise between the parties. The court held the offences were personal, injuries were not grave, and continuing proceedings served no purpose.

What did the court decide?

Quantum of bail and final report subsequent to the discharge, all further proceedings against the petitioners in L.P.C. No.65 of 2018 are quashed.

Muhammedali M., 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 25TH DAY OF JUNE 2019 / 4TH ASHADHA, 1941

¶5

Crl.MC.No.2385 of 2019

¶6

LPC NO.65/2018 OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, VATAKARA

¶7

CRIME NO.217/2011 OF BADAGARA POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE

¶8

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

¶9

1 MUHAMMEDALI M., AGED 48 YEARS, S/O.ABDULLA, ALATTINTHAZHAKUNI, P.O.AYANCHERI, VATAKARA, KOZHIKODE.

¶10

2 ARIF A.K., AGED 47 YEARS, S/O.ABDULLA, ALATTINTHAZHAKUNI, P.O.AYANCHERI, VATAKARA, KOZHIKODE.

¶11

3 NAVAS, AGED 39 YEARS, S/O.AMMAD, MARAM VEETTILTHAZHAKUNI, P.O.AYANCHERI, VATAKARA, KOZHIKODE.

¶12

4 MUTHUKOYATHANGAL, AGED 49 YEARS, S/O.POOKKOYATHANGAL, OTHAYOTH HOUSE, P.O.AYANCHERI, VATAKARA, KANNUR.

¶13

BY ADVS.SRI.K.ASHIS SRI.NANDAGOPAL S.KURUP

¶14

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANTS:

¶15

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

¶16

2 VIJESH, AGED 28 YEARS, S/O.CHATHU, NELLOLI THAZHAKUNI HOUSE, P.O.AYANCHERI, VATAKARA, KOZHIKODE-673101.

¶17

3 VIBIL, AGED 29 YEARS, S/O.BABU, ONTHATH VEEDU, MANGALAD, PAINGOYI, VATAKARA, KOZHIKODE- 673101.

¶18

Crl.MC.No.2385 of 2019

¶19

¶20

R2 & R3 BY ADV. SRI.N.L.BITTO R1 BY SRI.RAMESH CHAND, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶21

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25.06.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

Crl.MC.No.2385 of 2019

¶23

¶24

ORDER

¶25

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

¶26

The petitioners herein have approached this Court seeking to quash the proceedings pending against them as L.P.C No.65 of 2018 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Vatakara, wherein they face accusations of having committed offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 324 r/w Section 34 of the IPC.

¶27

Brief facts of the case necessary to be noticed for considering the prayer sought for is that on 24.02.2011 at about 18.30 hours, the petitioners wrongfully restrained the party respondents and they are alleged to have assaulted them causing injuries.

¶28

Heard Sri. Ashis Korattyswaroopam, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Sri.Bitto N.L, the learned counsel appearing for the party respondents and the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶29

It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the parties that the parties have managed to resolve their disputes and have agreed to live peaceably. It is asserted that in the affidavits sworn to by the victims, they have stated that they have no further

¶30

Crl.MC.No.2385 of 2019

¶31

¶32

grievance against the petitioners. They maintain that the termination of the criminal proceedings would resolve a festering private dispute

¶33

between the parties and enable them to pursue their life as law abiding citizens. According to the learned counsel, no purpose would be served in continuing with the criminal proceedings in view of the changed circumstances.

¶34

The learned Public Prosecutor, on instructions, submitted that the investigating officer has reported that no other crimes are registered against the petitioners. It is further submitted that the State has no serious objection in quashing the proceedings as no public interest is involved.

¶35

I have considered the submissions advanced and have

¶36

perused the records. The records do not reveal that any serious injuries were sustained by the victims. In Gian Singh v. State of Punjab [(2012) 10 SCC 303], the Apex Court has held that in appropriate cases, the High Court can take note of the amicable resolution of disputes between the victims and the wrongdoer to put an end to the criminal proceedings. This view was reiterated in Parbatbhai Aahir v. State of Gujarat [2017 (12) SCALE 187] .

¶37

Having considered the submissions and on perusing the

¶38

Crl.MC.No.2385 of 2019

¶39

¶40

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 victims 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.

¶41

In the result, this petition is allowed. Annexure-II final report and all further proceedings pursuant thereto against the petitioners now pending as L.P.C. No.65 of 2018 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Vatakara are quashed.

¶42

SD/-

¶43

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V., JUDGE

¶44

IAP

¶45

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

¶46

Crl.MC.No.2385 of 2019

¶47

¶48

APPENDIX

¶49

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶50

ANNEXURE I CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NUMBER 217 OF 2011 OF VATAKARA POLICE STATION. ANNEXURE II CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO.217 OF 2011 OF VATAKARA POLICE STATION. ANNEXURE III AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT DATED 15.10.2018. ANNEXURE IV AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT DATED 15.10.2018.

¶51

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:

¶52

NIL

Muhammedali M., v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Muhammedali M., 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shareef Vs State of Kerala

Sojy Vs State of Kerala

Suo Motu Vs State of Kerala

Rasheed Vs State of Kerala

Asmabi Vs State of Kerala

Fairoos P.P., Vs State of Kerala