Quashed

Haider Ali a., v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC23 May 2019Crl.MC/978/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a CPC matter concerning offences under Sec.394 IPC, the Kerala High Court applied settled principles to quash criminal proceedings against two accused persons following a settlement affidavit by the victim's mother, finding that further prosecution would serve no purpose.

What did the court decide?

Quashed proceedings against both accused persons in CC 696/2016 and all further proceedings taken thereagainst.

Haider Ali a., 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

THURSDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF MAY 2019 / 2ND JYAISHTA, 1941

¶5

CRL.MC.NO. 978 OF 2019

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC 696/2016 OF ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE ,TRIVANDRUM

¶7

CRIME NO. 1329/2015 OF POOJAPPURA POLICE STATION , THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

¶8

PETITIONER:

¶9

HAIDER ALI A., AGED 52 YEARS S/O ABOOBECKER, TC 45/740 BEEMA PALI, VALLAKADAVU P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶10

BY ADV. SMT.SANDHYA RAJU

¶11

RESPONDENTS:

¶12

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

¶13

2 MEENA RAJ, W/O LATE SUNIL KUMAR, SHREE SHAILAM HOUSE, MAITRI NAGAR, MNRA 23, VALIYAVILLA WARD THIRUMALA VILLAGE-695006.

¶14

4 THE REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICER, PASSPORT OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA-695024.

¶15

SRI.T.R.RENJITH, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR FOR R1, SRI.C.M.JIHADH, ADVOCATE FOR R2, SRI.P.VIJAYAKUMAR, ASGI FOR R3

¶16

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23.05.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

ALEXANDER THOMAS, J. -----------------------------------Crl.M.C. No. 978 of 2019

¶18

Dated this the 23^rd day of May, 2019

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

The petitioner is the accused No.1 in Crime

¶21

No.1329/2015 of Poojappura Police Station, which has been registered for offences punishable under Sec.394 of the IPC.

¶22

The case of the prosecution is that, the petitioner (A1) had attempted to snatch a chain of the victim [who is the daughter of the 2^nd respondent, who was then a minor (CW1)]. The crime was triggered on the basis of the complaint given by the husband of the 2^nd respondent who is now no more. He was arrayed as CW2. The allegation as against accused No.2 is that, he had helped the petitioner (A1) to escape in the motor cycle. The Police after investigation has now filed the impugned Anx.I Final Report

¶23

in the above crime which has led to the institution of C.C.No.696/2016 on the file of Addl.Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Thiruvananthapuram. It is pointed out that the entire issues have now been satisfactorily resolved as between the petitioner (A1) and the 2^nd respondent who is the mother of the

¶24

..3..

¶25

Crl.M.C. No. 978 / 2019

¶26

minor victim girl. The 2^nd respondent has now sworn to Anx.II affidavit stating that entire issues have been resolved between the parties, and that the defacto complainant does not press to prosecute the matter any further, and that she has no objection in quashing the impugned criminal proceedings on the ground of settlement.

¶27

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

¶28

..4..

¶29

Crl.M.C. No. 978 / 2019

¶30

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

Counsel for the 2^nd respondent has submitted on the basis of the Anx.II affidavit of the 2^nd respondent that the defacto complainant has fully resolved the disputes, and that she has no objection for quashment of the impugned criminal proceedings. It has to be borne in mind that the accused No.1 is arrayed as the petitioner in this case and accused No.2 is not a party in this proceedings. The allegation raised against the accused No.2 is that, he had helped the accused No.1 to escape in the motor cycle. Since the prime accused is the petitioner (A1) there is no point in limiting the quashment of the impugned criminal proceedings to the extent it affects the petitioner alone. Such a partial quashment would be unnecessary burden to both the investigating agency, the prosecution agency as well as the trial court.

¶32

Taking note of the facts and circumstances of the case, it is ordered in the interest of justice that the impugned criminal

¶33

Crl.M.C. No. 978 / 2019

¶34

proceedings in Anx.I Final Report in Crime No.1329/2015 of Poojappura Police Station, which has led to the institution of C.C.No.696/2016 on the file of Addl.Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Thiruvananthapuram, as against both the accused persons as well as all further proceedings taken in pursuance thereof as against them will stand quashed. The petitioner will produce a certified copy of this order before the investigating officer concerned as well as before the jurisdictional Magistrate Court concerned for necessary information.

¶35

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

¶36

Sd/ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE

¶37

MMG

¶38

Crl.M.C. No. 978 / 2019

¶39

..6..

¶40

APPENDIX

¶41

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶42

ANNEXURE I COPY OF FINAL REPORT IN CC.696/2016 ANNEXURE II AFFIDAVIT OF THE DE-FACTO COMPLAINANT

Haider Ali a., v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Haider Ali a., 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

Gigi Varghese, Vs State of Kerala

Thankamma Vs Madhu

Ratheesh Vs State of Kerala

Ananthapadmanabhan Vs State of Kerala

Kiran Joseph Vs State of Kerala

Ashiq N.A. Vs State of Kerala