Allowed

Abdul Latheef v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC1 Oct 2020Crl.MC/3712/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged the return of the First Information Report in a criminal matter. The Court observed that the dispute leading to the crime was amicably settled by the de facto complainant. Applying Supreme Court precedents, the Court held that continued proceedings would be an abuse of process and quashed the trial. Two replies were filed by opposing parties.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Miscellaneous Case (Crl.M.C.No.3712 of 2020) was allowed, and the criminal proceedings in S.C.No.466 of 2019 on the file of the Additional Sessions Court, Ottappalam, were quashed.

Abdul Latheef 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

THURSDAY, THE 01ST DAY OF OCTOBER 2020 / 9TH ASWINA, 1942

¶5

Crl.MC.No.3712 OF 2020(D)

¶6

SC 466/2019 OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT, OTTAPALAM

¶7

CRIME NO.105/2018 OF Chalissery Police Station , Palakkad

¶8

PETITIONER/S:

¶9

1 ABDUL LATHEEF

¶10

AGED 43 YEARS

¶11

S/O MUHAMMED, ATHANNIKKAL HOUSE, THEKKE VAVANOOR P.O.NAGALASSERY VILLAGE, PATTAMBI

¶12

TALUK.

¶13

2 RASAK,

¶14

AGED 51 YEARS

¶15

S/O MARAKAR, MANIYATH HOUSE, THEKKE VAVANOOR P.O.PATTAMBI TALUK.

¶16

3 JAFFAR AGED 40 YEARS S/O KUNJUVADEEN, MANIYARATH HOUSE, THEKKE

¶17

VAVANOOR P.O.PATTAMBI TALUK.

¶18

4 SHEKKER C DOUBLES MANI, AGED 42 YEARS S/O MUHAMMED, PUTHAN PEDIKAYIL HOUSE,

¶19

CHALIPURAM, VAVANOOR P.O.

¶20

5 NOUFAL, AGED 34 YEARS

¶21

S/O MOIDHU, MANIYATHL HOUSE, CHALIPURAM, PATTAMBI TALUK.

¶22

6 JISHAD, AGED 29 YEARS S/O KUNJU MUHAMMED, KANICHIRAKKAL HOUSE, THEKKE

¶23

¶24

Crl.M.C.No.3712 of 2020

¶25

VAVANNOOR P.O.KOOTNAD, PATTAMBI TALUK.

¶26

7 HABEEB IBRAHIM, AGED 50 YEARS S/O JUNJI MOHAMMED, THAZATHETHIL HOUSE, THEKKE VAVANNOOR P.O.KOOTNAD, PATTAMBI TALUK.

¶27

BY ADV. SRI.A.HAROON RASHEED

¶28

RESPONDENT/S:

¶29

1 STATE OF KERALA THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM

¶30

2 SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHALISSERY POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM

¶31

3 RAMDAS, AGED 40 YEARS S/O RAGHAVAN NAIR, KAVUNGAL HOUSE, NAGARIPUPURAM, MANNUR P.O.PALAKKAD DISTRICT-678 642

¶32

R3 BY ADV. C.R.REKHESH SHARMA

¶33

OTHER PRESENT:

¶34

SR.PP.AMJAD ALI

¶35

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION

¶36

ON 01.10.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶37

¶38

Crl.M.C.No.3712 of 2020

¶39

ORDER

¶40

Dated this the 01^st day of October , 2020

¶41

Petitioners are the accused in Crime No.105 OF 2018 registered at the Chalissery Police Station

¶42

for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 506(ii), 308 and 149 of IPC, now pending as S.C.No.466 of 2019 on the file of the Additional Sessions Court, Ottappalam. The de facto complainant, at whose instance the crime was registered, is arrayed as the third respondent. Annexure A5 affidavit has been filed by the third respondent stating that the dispute which led to registration of the crime, has been settled amicably and he has no subsisting grievance in the matter.

¶43

2. Heard the learned Public Prosecutor also, who, on instructions, submits that the petitioners

¶44

¶45

Crl.M.C.No.3712 of 2020

¶46

have no criminal antecedents.

¶47

3. Having considered the gravity of the

¶48

offences alleged, nature of the injury caused and having perused the affidavit filed by the third respondent, the contents of which are submitted to

¶49

be true and voluntary, I am satisfied that the matter has been amicably settled and that no public interest is involved in this matter.

¶50

Moreover, in view of the settlement arrived at between the parties, there is no possibility of the criminal proceedings ending in conviction. 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

¶51

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.

¶52

¶53

Crl.M.C.No.3712 of 2020

¶54

In the result, this Crl.M.C is allowed. The proceedings in S.C.No.466 of 2019 on the file of the Additional Sessions Court, Ottappalam is

quashed.

V.G.ARUN JUDGE

Scl/01.10.2020

Crl.M.C.No.3712 of 2020

¶59

¶60

APPENDIX

¶61

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶62

ANNEXURE A1 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO 105/2018 OF CHALISSERY POLICE STATION ANNEXURE A2 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT/CHARGE SHEET IN CRIME NO 105/2018 OF CHALISSERY POLICE STATION ANNEXURE A3 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE WITNESS MEMORANDUM IN CRIME NO 105/2018 OF CHALISSERY POLICE STATION

¶63

ANNEXURE A4 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE WOUND CERTIFICATE OF THE DEFACTO COMPLAINT

¶64

ANNEXURE A5 THE ORIGINAL COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT REGARDING SETTLEMENT SIGNED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT

Abdul Latheef v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abdul Latheef 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

Rijil P.C Vs State of Kerala

Abdul Malik Vs State of Kerala

Mini Vs State of Kerala

Mohammed Suhail.P.H Vs Station House Officer

Vaisakh Jagadish Vs State of Kerala

Aswath A.K. Vs State of Kerala