Allowed

Rinoy, v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC22 Sept 2020Crl.MC/2180/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court allowed two connected criminal miscellaneous applications filed by accused persons. Relying on Supreme Court precedents, the court quashed pending criminal proceedings (C.C. Nos. 26/2013 and 96/2015) after being satisfied that the disputes were amicably settled and conviction was remote.

What did the court decide?

Crl.MC. Nos. 2232/2020 and 2180/2020 allowed; C.C. Nos. 26/2013 and 96/2015 quashed.

Rinoy, Vs 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

TUESDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2020 / 31ST BHADRA, 1942

¶5

Crl.MC.No.2232 OF 2020(H)

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER IN CC 26/2013 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS - I, OTTAPPALAM

¶7

CRIME NO.198/2009 OF Shornur Police Station , Palakkad

¶8

PETITIONER/ACCUSED NOS. 1 TO 4:

¶9

1 RAJEEB,

¶10

AGED 30 YEARS S/O. MOHAMMED, KONGASSERI HOUSE, KURUVATTOOR, VALLAPUZHA POST, PATTAMBI TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

¶11

2 ABDUL RASAK,

¶12

AGED 35 YEARS

¶13

S/O. MOHAMMED, KONGASSERI HOUSE, KURUVATTOOR, VALLAPUZHA POST, PATTAMBI TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

¶14

3 NAJEEBUDHEEN,

¶15

AGED 30 YEARS S/O. ADAMKUTTY, CHETTIYARUTHODI HOUSE, KURUVATTOOR, VALLAPUZHA POST, PATTAMBI TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

¶16

4 SHIHAB,

¶17

AGED 30 YEARS S/O. IBRAHIM, CHAKKALAKKAL HOUSE, KURUVATTOOR, VALLAPUZHA POST, PATTAMBI TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

¶18

BY ADV. SRI.K.RAJESH SUKUMARAN

¶19

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT AND DE FACTO COMPLAINANT AND VICTIMS:

¶20

1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, COCHIN 682 035 THROUGH THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, SHORNUR POLICE STATION, SHORNUR 679 121, OTTAPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

¶21

2 SIVAN

¶22

AGED 45 YEARS S/O. ACHUTHAN NAIR, PUTHANVEETTIL HOUSE, KARUVATTOOR, NEW STREET, PATTAMBI TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT 679 336

¶23

3 RINOY

¶24

Crl.MC.2232/2020, Crl.MC.2180/2020 ..2..

¶25

AGED 32 YEARS S/O. NARAYANAN, POOTHIRUTHI HOUSE, KARUVATTOOR, PATTAMBI TALUK, PALAKKAD DIST 679 336

¶26

4 SUNIL BABU AGED 35 YEARS S/O. NARAYANAN, MANNEKKOTTUTHODI HOUSE, KURUVATTOOR, NEW STREET, PATTAMBI TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT 679 336

¶27

R2-4 BY ADV. R.SREEHARI

¶28

OTHER PRESENT:

¶29

SR.PP.AMJAD ALI

¶30

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22.09.2020, ALONG WITH Crl.MC.2180/2020(B), THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶31

Crl.MC.2232/2020, Crl.MC.2180/2020 ..3..

¶32

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶33

PRESENT

¶34

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN

¶35

TUESDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2020 / 31ST BHADRA, 1942

¶36

Crl.MC.No.2180 OF 2020(B)

¶37

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC 96/2015 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS - I, OTTAPPALAM

¶38

CRIME NO.197/2009 OF Shornur Police Station , Palakkad

¶39

PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1:

¶40

RINOY, AGED 32 YEARS

¶41

S/O.NARAYANAN, POOTHIRITHI HOUSE, KURUVATTOOR, VALLAPUZHA POST, PATTAMABI, TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT

¶42

BY ADV. SRI.R.SREEHARI

¶43

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT, DE FACTO COMPLAINANT AND VICTIM :

¶44

1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM COCHIN-682035 THROUGH THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, SHORNUR POLICE STATION, SHORNUR 679121, OTTAPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT

¶45

2 RAZAQ

¶46

AGED 35 YEARS S/O.MUHAMMED, KONGASSERI HOUSE, KURUVATTOOR, NEW CITY, VALLAPUZHA POST, PATTAMBI TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT-679336

¶47

3 ISMAYIL

¶48

AGED 29 YEARS S/O.ADHANKUTTY, CHETTIYARTHODI HOUSE, KURUVATTOOR, NEW CITY, VALLAPUZHA POST, PATTAMBI TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT 679336

¶49

R2-3 BY ADV. SRI.K.RAJESH SUKUMARAN

¶50

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22.09.2020, ALONG WITH Crl.MC.2232/2020(H), THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶51

Crl.MC.2232/2020, Crl.MC.2180/2020 ..4..

¶52

ORDER

¶53

[ Crl.MC.2232/2020, Crl.MC.2180/2020 ] Dated this the 22nd day of September 2020

¶54

The petitioners in Criminal M.C.No.2232/2020

¶55

are the accused in Crime No.198/2009 registered at the Shornur Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 323, 324 r/w 149 of IPC, now pending as C.C.No.26/2013 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Ottapalam. The petitioner in Criminal M.C. No.2180/2020 is the accused in Crime No.197/2009 registered at the Shornur Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 323, 324, 506(i) r/w 149 of IPC, now pending as C.C.No.96/2015 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Ottapalam. Both crimes are based on an incident which had taken place on

¶56

Crl.MC.2232/2020, Crl.MC.2180/2020 ..5..

¶57

11.05.2009. The de facto complainants and the injured persons in both cases are arrayed as party respondents in the Criminal M.C.s. Affidavits have been filed by those respondents stating that the reason for the incident, which led to registration of the crimes, has been resolved amicably out of court and they have no subsisting grievance in the matter. It is submitted that some of the co-accused, in both cases, were acquitted for want of evidence.

¶58

Heard the learned Public Prosecutor also,

¶59

who, on instructions, submits that the petitioners have no criminal antecedents.

¶60

Having considered the gravity of the offences alleged, nature of the injury caused and having perused the affidavits filed by the party respondents in both cases, 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

¶61

Crl.MC.2232/2020, Crl.MC.2180/2020 ..6..

¶62

in this matter. Moreover, in view of the settlement and acquittance of the co-accused, 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 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. In the result, this Crl.M.Cs are allowed. The proceedings C.C.Nos.26/2013 and C.C.No.96/2015 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Ottapalamin are quashed.

¶63

SB /23/09/2020

¶64

Sd/V.G.ARUN JUDGE

¶65

Crl.MC.2232/2020, Crl.MC.2180/2020 ..7..

¶66

APPENDIX OF Crl.MC 2232/2020

¶67

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶68

ANNEXURE A1 CERTIFIED COPY OF FIR IN CRIME NO. 198/2009 OF SHORNUR POLICE STATION

¶69

ANNEXURE A2 CERTIFIED COPY OF FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO. 198/2009 OF SHORNUR POLICE STATION.

¶70

ANNEXURE A3 PHOTO COPY OF MEMORANDUM OF EVIDENCE FILED ALONG WITH THE FINAL REPORT.

¶71

ANNEXURE A4 CERTIFIED COPY OF JUDGMENT IN CC 611/2009 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, OTTAPALAM DATED 22-01-2013.

¶72

ANNEXURE A5 AFFIDAVIT OF THE SECOND RESPONDENT ANNEXURE A6 AFFIDAVIT OF THE THIRD RESPONDENT ANNEXURE A7 AFFIDAVIT OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT.

¶73

Crl.MC.2232/2020, Crl.MC.2180/2020 ..8..

¶74

APPENDIX OF Crl.MC 2180/2020

¶75

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶76

ANNEXURE A1 CERTIFIED COPY OF FIR IN CRIME NO.197/2009 OF SHORNUR POLICE STATION ANNEXURE A2 CERTIFIED COPY OF FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO.197/2009 OF SHORNUR POLICE STATION

¶77

ANNEXURE A3 PHOTO COPY OF MEMORANDUM OF EVIDENCE FILED ALONG WITH FINAL REPORT

¶78

ANNEXURE A4 CERTIFIED COPY OF JUDGMENT IN CC 588/2009 OF JFCM COURT OTTAPALAM DATED 22.01.2013

¶79

ANNEXURE A5 AFFIDAVIT OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT ANNEXURE A6 AFFIDAVIT OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT

¶80

// true copy //

¶81

P.A to Judge

Rinoy, v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rinoy, 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Abdul Musafar Ashraf Vs State of Kerala

Achuthan, Vs K.R.Unnikrishnan

George Vs State of Kerala

Bindu Binu Vs State of Kerala

Rajeeb, Vs State of Kerala

Abdul Latheef B. M. Vs Sabura M.