Quashed

Shanu @ Abdul Rahman v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC19 Jun 2019Crl.MC/973/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Kerala High Court quashed criminal proceedings under Section 509 IPC after finding an amicable settlement between the accused petitioners and the victim respondents, invoking powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to prevent futile prosecution despite non-compoundable nature.

What did the court decide?

The final report/charge sheet and all further proceedings in C.C. No. 1052/2018 against the petitioners are quashed.

Shanu @ Abdul Rahman 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 ALEXANDER THOMAS

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF JUNE 2019 / 29TH JYAISHTA, 1941

¶5

Crl.MC.No.973 of 2019

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC 1052/2018 of JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS ,VADAKKANCHERRY

¶7

CRIME NO.540/2018 OF Vadakkanchery Police Station , Thrissur

¶8

PETITIONER/S:

¶9

1 SHANU @ ABDUL RAHMAN AGED 30 YEARS S/O.MOOSA, CHEENIKKARA HOUSE, ELANAD, THRISSUR.

¶10

2 SHIRAZ BASHEER AGED 30 YEARS S/O.ABDUL BARI, SHIRAZ MANZIL, MUKHARIKUNNU, CHELAKKARA, THRISSUR.

¶11

3 PRAKASHAN

¶12

AGED 39 YEARS S/O.MANI, VADAKKAD CHEENIKODE HOUSE, THENNILAPURAM, PADOOR, PALAKKAD.

¶13

4 VIVEK AGED 30 YEARS S/O.VISWANATHAN, THUMBAPARAMBIL HOUSE, CENTRAL JAIL QUARTERS, VIYOOR, THRISSUR.

¶14

5 AIBEESH AGED 31 YEARS S/O.RAMESH, VAZHAVALAPPIL HOUSE, CHERUVALOOR, KORATTY, THRISSUR.

¶15

BY ADV. SRI.C.K.PREM RAJ

¶16

RESPONDENT/S:

¶17

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

¶18

2 SOUMYA AGED 34 YEARS, W/O.BINTO, POOVATHUKARAN HOUSE, KARUVANKUZHY.P.O., ELANADU, THRISSUR-680586.

¶19

3 BEENA, AGED 37 YEARS, W/O.BIJU, POOVATHUKUNNEL HOUSE, KARUVANKUZHY.P.O., ELANADU, THRISSUR-680586.

¶20

4 SALI,

¶21

AGED 45 YEARS, W/O.JOHN, KOTTARAKUNNEL HOUSE, KARUVANKUZHY.P.O., ELANADU, THRISSUR-680586.

¶22

5 JISHA,

¶23

AGED 37 YEARS, W/O.MUKUNDAN, PUTHENVEEDU HOUSE, KARUVANKUZHY.P.O., ELANADU, THRISSUR-680586.

¶24

6 SUJATHA, AGED 38 YEARS, W/O.SETHUMADHAVAN, CHERINKAL HOUSE, KARUVANKUZHY.P.O., ELANADU, THRISSUR-680586.

¶25

7 PREETHA, AGED 40 YEARS, W/O.RAJENDRAN, MOLATH HOUSE, KARUVANKUZHY.P.O., ELANADU, THRISSUR-680586.

¶26

BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE RENOY

¶27

OTHER PRESENT:

¶28

SMT.PRIYA SHANAVAS, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR FOR R1

¶29

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19.06.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶30

ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.

¶31

==================

¶32

Crl.M.C.No. 973 of 2019

¶33

================== Dated this the 19^th day of June, 2019

¶34

O R D E R

¶35

The petitioners herein are the accused in the impugned Anx. A-1

¶36

final report/charge sheet filed in Crime No.540/2018 of Wadakkancherry Police Station, registered for offences punishable under Sec.509 and Sec. 34 of the I.P.C., which has led to the institution of Calendar Case, C.C.No.1052/2018 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Wadakkancherry, on the basis of the respondents 2 to 7. It is stated that now the entire disputes between the petitioners and respondents 2 to 7 have been settled amicably and that respondents 2 to 7 have filed separate 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.

¶37

In a catena of decisions, the Apex Court has held that, in appropriate cases involving even non-compoundable offences, the

¶38

Crl.M.C.973/19 - : 4 :-

¶39

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.

¶40

Accordingly, it is ordered in the interest of justice that the impugned Anx. A-1 final report/charge sheet filed in Crime No. 540/ 2018 of Wadakkancherry Police Station, which has led to the

¶41

Crl.M.C.973/19 - : 5 :-

¶42

institution of Calendar Case, C.C.No. 1052/2018 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Wadakkancherry and all further proceedings arising therefrom pending against the accused persons will stand quashed.

¶43

The petitioners will produce certified copies of this order before the investigating officer concerned and the competent court below concerned. The office of the Advocate General will forward copy of this order to the investigating officer concerned for information.

¶44

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

¶45

sdk+

¶46

Sd/- ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE

¶47

Crl.M.C.973/19 - : 6 :-

¶48

APPENDIX

¶49

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶50

ANNEXURE A1	TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT WHICH NUMBERED
	AS C.C.NO.1052/18 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT,WADAKKANCHERRY.
ANNEXURE A2	AFFIDAVIT SWORN IN BY THE DEFACTO COMPLAINANT/RESPONDENT NO.2.
ANNEXURE A3	AFFIDAVIT SWORN IN BY THE DEFACTO COMPLAINANT/RESPONDENT NO.3.
ANNEXURE A4	AFFIDAVIT SWORN IN BY THE DEFACTO COMPLAINANT/RESPONDENT NO.4.
ANNEXURE A5	AFFIDAVIT SWORN IN BY THE DEFACTO COMPLAINANT/RESPONDENT NO.5.
ANNEXURE A6	AFFIDAVIT SWORN IN BY THE DEFACTO COMPLAINANT/RESPONDENT NO.6.
ANNEXURE A7	AFFIDAVIT SWORN IN BY THE DEFACTO COMPLAINANT/RESPONDENT NO.7.

Shanu @ Abdul Rahman v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shanu @ Abdul Rahman 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

Abdul Rasheed Vs State of Kerala

Muhammedali Vs State of Kerala

Abdul Samad Vs State of Kerala

Leo George Vs State of Kerala

Muhammed Ashraf.K.K., Vs Afeefa.K.

Baisy Vs State of Kerala