Allowed

Muhammed Salman v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC7 Oct 2020Crl.MC/3688/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court allowed the Criminal Miscellaneous petition and quashed proceedings in a police complaint case for menaces and hurt. The court found the dispute settled via affidavit, no criminal antecedents for the petitioner, and no public interest in continuation.

What did the court decide?

The criminal proceedings in Crime No. 610 of 2020 registered at Koduvally Police Station are quashed.

Muhammed Salman 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

WEDNESDAY, THE 07TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2020 / 15TH ASWINA, 1942

¶5

Crl.MC.No.3688 OF 2020(A)

¶6

(Crime No.610.2020 of Koduvally Police Station pending before JFCM-I, Thamarassery, Kozhikode)

¶7

PETITIONER:

¶8

MUHAMMED SALMAN AGED 27 YEARS S/O.MUHAMMED, MADATHIL MEETHAL HOUSE,THECHYAD, KALLURUTTY.P.O, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN-673582.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.LUIZ GODWIN D COUTH

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

1 STATE OF KERALA REP.BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031.

¶12

2 ABDUL SALEEM P.K. S/O.KATHIRI,POOVATHIRIMALAYIL HOUSE,THECHIYAD,KALLURUTTY.P.O,MUKKOM,KOZHIKODE DISTRICT,PIN-673582.

¶13

R2 BY ADV. JOSE KURIAKOSE (VILANGATTIL)

¶14

SR.PP.AMJAD ALI

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07.10.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

Crmc 3688/2020

V.G.ARUN, J.

=========================== Crl.M.C.No.3688 of 2020

¶20

=========================== Dated this the 7^th day of October, 2020

¶21

ORDER

¶22

Petitioner is the accused in Crime No.610 of 2020 registered

¶23

at the Koduvally Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 324, 308 r/w 34 of IPC now pending before JFCM-I, Thamarassery. The de facto complainant, at whose instance the crime was registered, is the 2^nd respondent. Annexure B affidavit has been filed by the 2^nd respondent stating that the dispute is resolved and that he has no subsisting grievance against the petitioner.

¶24

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

¶25

Having considered the gravity of the offences alleged, nature of the injury caused and having perused the affidavit filed by the 2^nd respondent, 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

¶26

Crmc 3688/2020

¶27

¶28

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 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 Crime No. 610 of 2020 registered at the Koduvally Police Station is quashed.

sd/-

V.G.ARUN

JUDGE

lgk

Crmc 3688/2020

APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶38

ANNEXURE A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE F.I.R.IN CRIME NO.610/2020 REGISTERED BY THE THAMARASSERY POLICE.

¶39

ANNEXURE B THE AFFIDAVIT DTD.24.07.2020 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT SHOWING THE SETTLEMENT.

Muhammed Salman v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Muhammed Salman 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

Jeeshma.P., Vs Rajeevan.K.P.

V.Salahudheen Ayoobi, Vs the State of Kerala

V.Salahudheen Ayoob Vs the State of Kerala

Ajith.S.Nair @ Kannan, Vs Rajan

Abdul Azeez Vs State of Kerala

Veerankutty Vs the State of Kerala