Quashed

Mujeeb Rahman v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC8 Apr 2019Crl.MC/3223/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single-judge criminal miscellaneous petition sought quashing of criminal proceedings following a complete settlement between petitioners, alleged accused, and respondents, de facto complainants. The High Court applied precedents and ordered quashment of the FIR and subsequent proceedings, finding no purpose in continuing prosecution.

What did the court decide?

Impugned FIR in Crime No.2553/2010 and Final Charge Sheet in C.C.No.2134/2010, along with all subsequent proceedings, were quashed.

Mujeeb Rahman 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 ALEXANDER THOMAS

¶4

MONDAY, THE 08TH DAY OF APRIL 2019 / 18TH CHAITHRA, 1941

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 3223 of 2018

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC 2134/2010 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT -I, ALUVA

¶7

CRIME NO. 2553/2010 OF ALUVA POLICE STATION , ERNAKULAM

¶8

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED:

¶9

1 MUJEEB RAHMAN

¶10

MOOLEPARAMBIL HOUSE, VALIYAMARAM WARD, THIRUVAMPADI.P.O., ALAPPUZHA.

¶11

2 KABEER VALIYAPARAMBIL HOUSE, MARAMPILLY.P.O. KUNNUVAZHI ALUVA.

¶12

3 SHAJI, MATHUKAPILLY HOUSE, KOONAMTHAI, CHANGAMPUZHA NAGAR.P.O. EDAPPALLY COCHIN-682033.

¶13

BY ADV. SMT.N.S.SOUMYA MOL

¶14

RESPONDENTS/STATE AND DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:

¶15

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

¶16

2 SAINABA AGED 45 D/O.ABOOBECKER CHERUPARAMBIL HOUSE, KUTTAMASSERY KARA, ALUVA, THOTTUMUGHAM.P.O., ALUVA TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶17

3 RUKHIYA AGED 64, W/O.ABOOBECKER CHERUPARAMBIL HOUSE KUTTAMASSERY KARA, ALUVA, THOTTUMUGHAM.P.O. ALUVA TALUK, ERNAKULAM

¶18

BY ADV. P.V.ANILKUMAR FOR R2 & R3

¶19

SRI.T.R.RENJITH, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR FOR R1, SRI.P.V.ANILKUMAR FOR R2 AND R3

¶20

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08.04.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

Crl.M.C. No.3223 of 2018

¶22

¶23

ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.

¶24

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Crl.M.C. No.3223 of 2018

¶25

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 08^th day of April, 2019

¶26

O R D E R

¶27

Petitioners herein are accused in the impugned Anx-AI FIR in Crime No.2553/2010 of Aluva Police Station, Ernakulam Rural, registered for offences punishable under Secs.448, 323, 294(b) & 34 of the IPC, which has led to the institution of Annex.A2 Final Charge Sheet in C.C.No.2134/2010 of the JFCM-I, Aluva. It is stated that now the entire disputes between the petitioners and contesting respondents 2 & 3 have been settled amicably and that contesting respondents 2 & 3 have sworn to Anxs.4 & 5 affidavits before this Court, wherein it is stated that they have settled the entire disputes with the petitioners and that they have no objection for quashment of the impugned criminal proceedings pending against the petitioners. It is in the light of these aspects that the petitioners have preferred the instant Crl.M.C. with the prayer to quash the impugned criminal proceedings against them.

¶28

Crl.M.C. No.3223 of 2018

¶29

¶30

In a catena of decisions, the Apex Court has held that, in appropriate cases involving even non-compoundable offences, the High Court can quash prosecution by exercise of the powers under Sec.482 of the Cr.P.C., if the parties have really settled the whole dispute or if the continuance of the prosecution will not serve any purpose. Here, this Court finds a real case of settlement between the parties and it is also found that continuance of the prosecution in such a situation will not serve any purpose other than wasting the precious time of the court, when the case ultimately comes before the court. On a perusal of the petition and on a close scrutiny of the investigation materials on record and the affidavit of settlement and taking into account the attendant facts and circumstances of this case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the legal principles laid down by the Apex Court in the cases as in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab reported in 2013 (1) SCC (Cri) 160 = (2012) 10 SCC 303 and Narinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and anr . reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466, more particularly paragraph 29 thereof, could be applied in this case to consider the prayer for quashment.

¶31

Accordingly, it is ordered in the interest of justice that the impugned Anx-AI FIR in Crime No.2553/2010 of Aluva Police Station, Ernakulam Rural, which has led to the institution of Annex.A2 Charge Sheet in C.C.No.2134/2010 of the JFCM-I, Aluva and all further

¶32

Crl.M.C. No.3223 of 2018

¶33

¶34

proceedings arising therefrom pending against all the accused will stand quashed.

¶35

With these observations and directions, the above Criminal Miscellaneous Case stands finally disposed of.

¶36

Sd/-

¶37

ALEXANDER THOMAS JUDGE

¶38

vgd

¶39

Crl.M.C. No.3223 of 2018

¶40

¶41

APPENDIX

¶42

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶43

ANNEXURE A1 PHOTOCOPY COPY OF CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR ANNEXURE A2 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL CHARGE SHEET IN CRIME NO.2553/2010.

¶44

ANNEXURE A3 TRUE COPY OF THE MEDIATION AGREEMENT DATED 10/10/2017.

¶45

ANNEXURE A4 TRUE COPY OF AFFIDAVIT OF SECOND RESPONDENT/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT.

¶46

ANNEXURE A5 TRUE COPY OF AFFIDAVIT OF THIRD RESPONDENT.

Mujeeb Rahman v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mujeeb Rahman v. the 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

Antony Vs State of Kerala

P.M.Mohammed Ashraf, Vs State of Kerala

Mohammed Niyas Vs State of Kerala

Ranesh, Vs the State of Kerala

Aneesh Vs State of Kerala

Manoj Jose Vs Anil Kumar