Dismissed

Ashique Rahman @ Babu, v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC23 Oct 2019Crl.MC/5499/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Skeleton argument filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing a label FIR arising from an attempt to murder. Petition sought quashing due to settlement with victim. Court refused, holding serious offences like attempt to murder are against society and cannot be quashed on settlement.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of proceedings against the petitioner was refused and the petition was dismissed.

Ashique Rahman @ Babu, 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 R. NARAYANA PISHARADI

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF OCTOBER 2019 / 1ST KARTHIKA, 1941

¶5

Crl.MC.No.5499 OF 2019(F)

¶6

CP IN 52/2018 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -I, PERINTHALMANNA

¶7

CRIME NO.141/2017 OF Perinthalmanna Police Station , Malappuram

¶8

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

¶9

ASHIQUE RAHMAN @ BABU, AGED 37 YEARS S/O.ABDURAHMAN, THUDIMAL HOUSE, IRUMBILIYAM, VALANCHERY, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.K.RAKESH

¶11

RESPONDENTS/STATE & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:

¶12

1 THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI - 682 031.

¶13

2 THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 679 322.

¶14

3 HASSAN,

¶15

S/O.MURATH VAIDIYAR, AGED 64 YEARS, KANCHIRAKKADAVATH HOUSE, PULAMANTHOLE P.O., PALOOR, PERINTHALMANNA TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 679 323.

¶16

R3 BY ADV. K.S.PRAVEEN

¶17

SRI C S HRITHWIK-PP SR

¶18

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16.10.2019, THE COURT ON 23.10.2019 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

Crl.MC.No.5499 OF 2019(F)

¶20

¶21

R.NARAYANA PISHARADI, J

¶22

************************ Crl.M.C.No.5499 of 2019

¶23

Dated this the 23^rd day of October, 2019

¶24

O R D E R

¶25

This is an application filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred as to 'the Code') for quashing the proceedings against the petitioner in the case C.P.No.52/2018 on the file of the Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Perinthalmanna.

¶26

The petitioner is the sole accused in the aforesaid case. The prosecution case is that on 24.02.2017, at about 19.30 hours, the accused criminally trespassed into a jewellery shop at the place Pulamanthol and threatened the de facto complainant by holding a gun towards him and made attempt to rob the gold ornaments from the shop. The accused fired a shot towards the de facto complainant and his employee. When they made a hue and cry, the accused tried to escape from there on a scooter. It is alleged that the accused has committed the offences punishable under Sections 393, 398, 450 and 307 I.P.C and also under Section 21 (1) of the Arms Act.

¶27

Crl.MC.No.5499 OF 2019(F)

¶28

¶29

The proceedings against the petitioner in the case are sought to be quashed on the ground that the matter has been settled between him and the third respondent, who is the de facto complainant/victim.

¶30

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the third respondent/de facto complainant and the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶31

The third respondent, who is the victim/de facto complainant, has filed an affidavit stating that the case has been settled between him and the petitioner and that he has got no grievance against the petitioner and that he has got no objection to quash the proceedings against the petitioner in the case.

¶32

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, in the light of the settlement reached between the de facto complainant and the petitioner, no useful purpose would be served by the continuation of the proceedings against the petitioner. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor submitted that, this is a case in which the accused made attempt to murder two persons by shooting with a gun and that the matter cannot be considered as personal or private in nature and that it would not be in the interests of justice to order premature termination of the prosecution against the petitioner.

¶33

Crl.MC.No.5499 OF 2019(F)

¶34

¶35

Power conferred under Section 482 of the Code is to be distinguished from the power which lies in the Court to compound the offences under Section 320 of the Code. No doubt, under Section 482 of the Code, the High Court has the power to quash the criminal proceedings even in those cases which are not compoundable, where the parties have settled the matter between themselves. However, this power is to be exercised sparingly and with caution. Offence under Section 307 I.P.C would fall in the category of heinous and serious offences. Such an offence has to be generally treated as crime against the society and not against the individual alone. Commission of an offence under Section 307 I.P.C will have a serious impact on the society at large. Settlement between the parties in relation to such offence cannot be given the seal of approval by the Court (See State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan : AIR 2019 SC 1296, State of Madhya Pradesh v. Kalyan Singh : AIR 2019 SC 312, State of Madhya Pradesh v. Dhruv Gurjar : AIR 2019 SC 1106 ).

¶36

In Laxmi Narayan (supra), it has been specifically held that offences under Section 307 IPC and the Arms Act etc. would fall in the category of heinous and serious offences and they have to be treated as crime against the society and not against the individual alone, and therefore, the criminal proceedings for the offence under Section 307

¶37

Crl.MC.No.5499 OF 2019(F)

¶38

¶39

IPC and or the Arms Act etc. which have a serious impact on the society cannot be quashed in exercise of powers under Section 482 of the Code on the ground that the parties have resolved their entire dispute amongst themselves.

¶40

In the instant case, there is a specific allegation against the petitioner that he fired twice with the gun in his hand. The de facto complainant had lowered down and therefore, the bullet did not hit him but he had sustained injuries by the shattering of gun powder. The prosecution seeks to adduce medical evidence in that regard. The accused had allegedly made attempt to murder not only the de facto complainant but also the witness by name Faisal (CW2) by shooting them. It is not a case where the police has incorporated the offence under Section 307 I.P.C for name sake. In the aforesaid circumstances, in the light of the principles laid down by the Apex Court in the aforesaid decisions, I find that this is not a fit case in which the power of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C can be invoked to quash the proceedings against the petitioner. The petition is liable to be dismissed.

¶41

Consequently, the petition is dismissed.

¶42

Sd/- R.NARAYANA PISHARADI, JUDGE

¶43

jsr/22/10/2019

¶44

Crl.MC.No.5499 OF 2019(F)

¶45

¶46

APPENDIX

¶47

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶48

ANNEXURE A TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT/CHARGE IN CRIME NO.141/2017 OF THE PERINTHALMANNA POLICE STATION. ANNEXURE B AFFIDAVIT SWORN TO BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 25/3/2019.

¶49

RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS: NIL

¶50

TRUE COPY

¶51

P.A TO JUDGE

¶52

LSN

Ashique Rahman @ Babu, v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashique Rahman @ Babu, 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

Mohandas Vs State of Kerala

Nizaruddin Vs Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Limited

Sreekantan, Vs Valsala

Sreekanth Vs State of Kerala

Annie Joy Vs State of Kerala

Nazeer Vs State of Kerala