Allowed

Fakrudeen Ali Ahamed v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC5 Oct 2020Crl.MC/1774/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal miscellaneous petition filed by two accusedpersons, the High Court of Kerala quashed the FIR and the final report. The Court, after hearing the learned Public Prosecutor, was satisfied that the dispute was amicably settled with no subsisting grievance and that continuing the proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of court.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Miscellaneous Case was allowed; the First Information Report (Annexure-A) and the Final Report (Annexure-B) and all proceedings based on Crime No.1256/2018 were quashed.

Fakrudeen Ali Ahamed Vs the State of Kerala — Quashing and FIR | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN

¶4

MONDAY, THE 05TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2020 / 13TH ASWINA, 1942

¶5

Crl.MC.No.1774 OF 2019(B)

¶6

CRIME NO.1256/2018 OF Pathanamthitta Police Station , Pathanamthitta

¶7

PETITIONER/ACCUSED NOS. 1 AND 2:

¶8

1 FAKRUDEEN ALI AHAMED AGED 41 YEARS S/O.SHAHUL HAMEED, ALANKARATHU HOUSE, KULASEKHARAPETTAH, KUMBAZHA MURI, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.

¶9

2 AMEER AGED 43 YEARS

¶10

S/O.SHAHUL HAMEED, ALANKARATHU HOUSE, KULASEKHARAPETTAH, KUMBAZHA MURI, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.

¶11

BY ADV. SRI.R.RAJESH

¶12

RESPONDENT/STATE/ COMPLAINANT / INJURED:

¶13

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

¶14

2 SHEFRIN SHERIFF @ RAJA, AGED 22 YEARS, S/O.SHERIFF, ALANKARATHU HOUSE, KULASEKHARAPETTAH, KUMBAZHA MURI, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT-689545.

¶15

3 ALTHAF HUSSAIN, AGED 20 YEARS, S/O.ZAKIR HUSSAIN, ALANKARATHU HOUSE, KULASEKHARAPETTAH, KUMBAZHA MURI, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT-689545.

¶16

4 ALFAS, AGED 18 YEARS, S/O.AKBAR, PANICKANTTAYATHU HOUSE, KUMBAZHA MURI, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, FROM MANALPPURATH HOUSE, OTTAPPALAM, PALAKKAD-678686.

¶17

R2-4 BY ADV. S.SHANAVAS KHAN R2-4 BY ADV. SMT.S.INDU

¶18

Crl.MC.No.1774 OF 2019(B) ..2..

¶19

OTHER PRESENT:

¶20

SR.PP.AMJAD ALI

¶21

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05.10.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

Crl.MC.No.1774 OF 2019(B) ..3..

¶23

ORDER

¶24

Dated this the 5th day of October 2020

¶25

Petitioners are the accused in Crime No.1256/2018 registered at the Pathanamthitta Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 324, 294(b), 506 r/w 34 of IPC. It is submitted that, even though, originally there were three accused, name of the 3^rd accused is not included in the final report and the offence under Section 506 IPC is deleted. The remaining accused have filed this Criminal M.C. The de facto complainant and the other person injured are arrayed respondents 2 to 4. Affidavits have been filed by the said respondents stating that the reason for the incident, which led to registration of the crime, has been resolved amicably

¶26

Crl.MC.No.1774 OF 2019(B) ..4..

¶27

and they have no subsisting grievance against the petitioners.

¶28

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

¶29

Having considered the gravity of the offences alleged, nature of the injury caused and having perused the affidavits filed by the respondents 2 to 4, the contents of which are submitted to be true and voluntary, I am satisfied that the dispute is settled and no public interest is involved in this matter. Moreover, in view of the settlement, possibility of the criminal proceedings ending in conviction is remote. 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

¶30

Crl.MC.No.1774 OF 2019(B) ..5..

¶31

Punjab [(2008) 4 SCC 582] and Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another [(2012) 10 SCC 303],

¶32

there is no impediment in granting the relief sought.

¶33

In the result, this Crl.M.C is allowed. AnnexureA FIR, Annexure-B Final Report and the proceedings based on Crime No.1256/2018 of the Pathanamthitta Police Station is quashed.

¶34

SB/05/10/2020

¶35

Sd/V.G.ARUN JUDGE

¶36

Crl.MC.No.1774 OF 2019(B) ..6..

¶37

APPENDIX

¶38

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶39

ANNEXURE A TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.1256/2018 OF PATHANAMTHITTA POLICE STATION. ANNEXURE B TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO.1256/2018 OF PATHANAMTHITTA POLICE STATION.

¶40

//true copy// P.A to Judge

Fakrudeen Ali Ahamed v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Fakrudeen Ali Ahamed 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohammed Suhail.P.H Vs Station House Officer

Vaisakh Jagadish Vs State of Kerala

Aswath A.K. Vs State of Kerala

Sudheesh .a Vs State of Kerala

Abhimanyu K.K Vs State of Kerala

Soumya Raj, Vs State of Kerala