Allowed

Abdul Musafar Ashraf v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC18 Sept 2020Crl.MC/1636/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed the petition and quashed pending criminal proceedings under Sections 308, 323, 324, and 341 IPC read with Section 34 IPC. The court found that the dispute was settled amicably, no public interest was involved, and continuance of proceedings would amount to an abuse of process.

What did the court decide?

The criminal miscellaneous case is allowed; the proceedings in S.C.No. 345 of 2015 and L.P.C.No. 21 of 2016 are quashed.

Abdul Musafar Ashraf Vs State of Kerala — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2020 / 27TH BHADRA, 1942

¶5

Crl.MC.No.1636 OF 2020(D)

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN SC 345/2015 OF SUB COURT, HOSDRUG AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN LPC 21/2016 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -I,HOSDRUG

¶7

CRIME NO.41/2014 OF Chandera Police Station , Kasargod

¶8

PETITIONER/S:

¶9

1 ABDUL MUSAFAR ASHRAF AGED 28 YEARS S/O.MUHAMMED ASHRAF, B C HOUSE, MOOSA HAJI MUKKU, PADANNA VILALGE, HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGOD-671 316.

¶10

2 MUHAMMED ASHRAF @ SAKHAV ASHRAF, AGED 53 YEARS S/O.B.C.ABDULLAH, B C HOUSE, MOOSA HAJI MUKKU, PADANNA VILALGE, HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGOD-671 316.

¶11

BY ADVS. SRI.RAHUL SASI SMT.NEETHU PREM

¶12

RESPONDENT/S:

¶13

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

¶14

2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER, CHANDERA POLICE STATION, KASARAGOD-671 310.

¶15

3 K.C.AHAMMED, AGED 50 YEARS S/O.LATE ABOOBACKER HAJI, NAFIYA MANZIL, THEKKEPPURAM, PADNE, PADNE VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGOD-671 316.

¶16

4 K.C.MUHAMMED, AGED 47 YEARS S/O.LATE ABOOBACKER HAJI, NAFIYA MANZIL, THEKKEPPURAM, PADNE, PADNE VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGOD-671 316.

¶17

5 SHAKKER.K.C., AGED 27 YEARS S/O.MAHMOOD, SHAKKEER MANIL, THEKKEPPURAM, PADNE, PADNE VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGOD-671 316.

¶18

OTHER PRESENT:

¶19

SR.PP.AMJAD ALI

¶20

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18.09.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

V.G.ARUN, J.

¶22

CRL.M.C.No.1636 of 2020

¶23

Dated this the 18^th day of September, 2020

¶24

O R D E R

¶25

Petitioners are accused 1 and 2 in Crime No.41 of 2014 registered at the Chandera Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 308, 323, 324 and 341 read with 34 of IPC, now pending as S.C.No.345 of 2015 on the files of the Assistant Sessions Court, Hosdurg and L.P.C.No.21 of 2016 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Hosdurg. The de facto complainant, at whose instance the crime was registered, and the other persons injured in the incident are arrayed as respondents 3 to 5. Annexures A2 to A4 affidavits are filed by the said respondents stating that the dispute, which led to registration of the crime, has been settled amicably and that they have no subsisting grievance in the matter.

¶26

Heard the learned Public Prosecutor also, who, on instructions, submits that the petitioners have no criminal antecedents.

¶27

Having considered the gravity of the offences alleged, nature of the injury caused and having perused the affidavit filed by respondents 3 to 5, the contents of which are submitted to be true and voluntary, I am satisfied that the dispute is settled and that no public interest is involved in this matter. Moreover, in view of the settlement, possibility of the criminal proceedings ending in conviction is remote.

¶28

As such, continuance of the proceedings will amount to an abuse of process of court and hence, in view of the legal position set out by the Honourable Supreme Court in Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab [(2008) 4 SCC 582] and Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another [(2012) 10 SCC 303], there is no impediment in granting the relief sought.

¶29

In the result, this Crl.M.C is allowed. The proceedings in S.C.No. 345 of 2015 on the files of the Assistant Sessions Court, Hosdurg and L.P.C.No. 21 of 2016 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Hosdurg are quashed.

Sd/-

V.G.ARUN, JUDGE

vgs

APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶35

ANNEXURE A1	A TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO.41 OF 2014 OF HOSDURG POLICE STATION.
ANNEXURE A2	AFFIDAVIT DATED 11.02.2020 SUBMITTED BY 3RD RESPONDENT.
ANNEXURE A3	AFFIDAVIT DATED 11.02.2020 SUBMITTED BY 4TH RESPONDENT.
ANNEXURE A4	AFFIDAVIT DATED 11.02.2020 SUBMITTED BY 5TH RESPONDENT.

Abdul Musafar Ashraf v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abdul Musafar Ashraf 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

Santhosh Kumar Vs State of Kerala

Vipin O. Vs State of Kerala

Godson George Vs State of Kerala

Achuthan, Vs K.R.Unnikrishnan

George Vs State of Kerala

Aneesh Kumar Vs State of Kerala