Allowed

Arshad v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC17 Jan 2019Crl.MC/471/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash criminal prosecution against seven accused persons in a case involving IPC offenses. The court reasoned that the parties had reached a genuine and amicable settlement, rendering further prosecution unnecessary.

What did the court decide?

The prosecution in C.C.No.969/2017 was quashed and the petitioners were released from prosecution with bail bonds discharged.

Arshad 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 P.UBAID

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF JANUARY 2019 / 27TH POUSHA, 1940

¶5

Crl.MC.No.471 of 2019

¶6

CC.969/2017 of J.M.F.C., NADAPURAM CRIME NO.323/2017 OF KUTTIADY POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE

¶7

PETITIONER/ACCUSED Nos.1 TO 7 :-

¶8

1 ARSHAD, AGED 21 YEARS, S/O.ABDURAHIMAN, NADUVILAKKANDI HOUSE, NARIPPATTA AMSOM DESOM, VATAKARA THALUK.

¶9

2 AFSAL, AGED 20 YEARS, S/O.ABDURAHIMAN, NADUVILAKKANDI HOUSE, NARIPPATTA AMSOM DESOM, VATAKARA THALUK.

¶10

3 FAROOKH.A.K, AGED 21 YEARS, S/O.KUNJAHAMMAD, ARAKKANDI HOUSE, NARIPATTA AMSOM DESOM, VATAKARA TALUK.

¶11

4 MUHAMMAD SAJID, AGED 21 YEARS, S/O.KASIM, THAZHE CHALIKKAL HOUSE, NARIPPATTA AMSOM DESOM, VATAKARA THALUK.

¶12

5 MUHAMMED ASIF, AGED 21 YEARS, S/O.ANDRU, ARUKKANDIYIL HOUSE, NARIPPATTA AMSOM DESOM, VATAKARA TALUK.

¶13

6 SUHAIL, AGED 21 YEARS, S/O.AMMAD, ARUKKANDIYIL HOUSE, NARIPPATTA AMSOM DESOM, VATAKARA THALUK.

¶14

7 SALMAN, AGED 21 YEARS, S/O.ISMAIL, CHALIKKAL HOUSE, NARIPPATTA AMSOM DESOM, VATAKARA THALUK.

¶15

BY ADV. SRI.ZUBAIR PULIKKOOL

¶16

RESPONDENT/STATE & DE FACTO COMPLAINANT :-

¶17

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM – 682 031.

¶18

Crl.MC.No.471/2019

¶19

-: 2 :-

¶20

2 MUHAMMAD ANAS, AGED 31 YEARS, S/O.MOOSSA, VALLATH HOUSE, P.O.NUCHIAD, NUCHIAD AMSOM DESOM, IRUTTI, THALUK.KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN – 670 705.

¶21

3 AFSAL, AGED 25 YEARS, S/O.MUHAMMED ALI, EYYACHERY HOUSE, P.O.KADAVATHUR, KADAVATHUR AMSOM DESOM, THALASSERY, THALUK.KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN – 670 676.

¶22

4 HASEENA, AGED 35 YEARS, W/O.ANDRU, CHUNDAULLAPARAMBATH HOUSE, P.O.NARIPATTA, NARIPPATTA AMSOM DESOM, VATAKARA THALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN – 673 506.

¶23

R2 TO R4 BY ADV. SRI.P.S.BINU R1 BY SRI.ALEX M THOMBRA, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶24

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17.01.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

Crl.MC.No.471/2019

-: 3 :-

O R D E R

The petitioners are the accused Nos.1 to 7 in

¶29

C.C.No.969/2017 of the Judicial First Class

¶30

Magistrate Court, Nadapuram. They seek orders

¶31

quashing the prosecution on the ground of amicable settlement of the whole dispute between them and the

¶32

de facto complainant. Crime in this case was registered under Sections 143, 147, 341, 323 and

¶33

294(b) IPC read with Section 149 IPC on the complaint of one Muhammad Anas, who is the 2^nd respondent in this proceeding brought under Section 482 Cr.P.C.. He has filed affidavit to the effect

¶34

that he has settled the whole dispute with the accused, and he has no grievance or complaint now.

¶35

The other persons, who sustained injuries in the alleged incident are the respondent Nos.3 and 4 in this proceeding. They have also filed affidavit to the effect that they have settled the whole dispute with the accused, and they have no grievance or complaint now.

¶36

Crl.MC.No.471/2019

¶37

-: 4 :-

¶38

In so many decisions, the Hon'ble Supreme

¶39

Court has held that even in cases involving noncompoundable offences, the High Court can quash the

¶40

prosecution in pending proceedings, if the parties have really settled the whole dispute amicably out of court, and continuance of the prosecution will not serve any purpose in such a circumstance of amicable settlement. Here, I find a real and

¶41

genuine case of settlement between the parties. This is not a case involving any public interest or public issue. The parties have come to terms amicably on the intervention of persons acceptable to both sides, and I am satisfied that the parties

¶42

are now on quite cordial terms. In such a situation, continuance of the prosecution will not serve any purpose other than wasting the precious

¶43

time of the court. No doubt, nobody will support

¶44

the prosecution in such a situation, if the case goes to trial.

¶45

In the result, this petition is allowed.

¶46

The prosecution against the petitioners herein in

¶47

Crl.MC.No.471/2019

¶48

-: 5 :-

¶49

C.C.No.969/2017 of the Judicial First Class

¶50

Magistrate Court, Nadapuram will stand quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.. Accordingly, the petitioners

¶51

will stand released from prosecution, and the bail

¶52

bond, if any, executed by them will stand

discharged.

Sd/P.UBAID JUDGE

Jvt/17.1.2019

Crl.MC.No.471/2019

-: 6 :-

APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES :-

¶60

ANNEXURE I TRUE COPY OF THE CHARGE SHEET IN CRIME NO.323/2017 OF KUTTIADI POLICE STATION.

¶61

ANNEXURE 2 SWORN AFFIDAVIT OF 2ND RESPONDENT. ANNEXURE 3 SWORN AFFIDAVIT OF 3RD RESPONDENT. ANNEXURE 4. SWORN AFFIDAVIT OF 4TH RESPONDENT.

¶62

RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES :- NIL

¶63

//TRUE COPY//

¶64

P.A. TO JUDGE

Arshad v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arshad 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Noushad Vs State of Kerala

Shameer Vs State of Kerala

Sanjeev Balkur Vs State of Kerala

Vishnuprasad.K, Vs State of Kerala

Jishnu Vs State of Kerala

Santhosh.K Vs the State of Kerala