Allowed

Muhammed Noufal v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC14 Dec 2020Crl.MC/4350/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed a criminal miscellaneous petition to quash pending criminal proceedings. The court found the dispute settled amicably, no public interest involved, and continued proceedings would amount to abuse of process.

What did the court decide?

The criminal miscellaneous petition (Crl.M.C.No.4350 of 2020) is allowed and the pending criminal proceedings (C.C.No.638 of 2019) are quashed.

Muhammed Noufal 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

MONDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2020 / 23RD AGRAHAYANA, 1942

¶5

Crl.MC.No.4350 OF 2020(C)

¶6

CC 638/2019 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, KASARAGOD

¶7

CRIME NO.124/2019 OF VIDYA NAGAR POLICE STATION, Kasargod

¶8

PETITIONER/S:

¶9

1 MUHAMMED NOUFAL AGED 31 YEARS S/O ASSAINAR,SINAN MANZIL,NAINMARMOOLA, MUTTUTHODY VILLAGE,KASARAGOD.

¶10

2 KALANDER IMTHIYAZ.N.M, AGED 31 YEARS S/O.T.M.MUHAMOOD,VAGID MANZIL,NAIMARMOOLA,ALAMPADY, MUTTATHODY VILLAGE,KASARAGOD.

¶11

3 MUHAMMED AMEEN.A.L, AGED 42 YEARS S/O.ABDUL LATHEEF,AROMA VILLA, NAIMARMOOLA,MUTTATHODY VILLAGE, KASARAGOD.

¶12

4 ABDUL RAHIMAN, AGED 32 YEARS S/O SHAFI,HUDA MANIL,PERUMBALA KADAVATH,CHENGALA VILLAGE,KASARAGOD.

¶13

5 NOORUDDEEN.K.M, AGED 32 YEARS S/O MUHAMMED RAFEEQUE,KADAVATH HOUSE, PERUMBALA KADAVATH,CHENGALA VILLAGE, KASARAGOD.

¶14

BY ADV. SRI.U.JAYAKRISHNAN

¶15

¶16

Crl.M.C.No.4350 of 2020

¶17

RESPONDENT/S:

¶18

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER,VIDYA NAGAR POLICE STATION IN KASARAGOD DISTRICT,THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM-682031.

¶19

2 NUHMAN C.I. S/O SAKARIYA,MANIYADUKKAM HOUSE, RAHMATH NAGAR.P.O,CHENGALA NALAMAIL, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.

¶20

3 AHMED SUFAIL AGED 18 YEARS S/O B.P.MUHAMMED,BADARIYA HOUSE, SULTHAN NAGAR,ANAGOOR VILLAGE, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.

¶21

R2-3 BY ADV. SRI.R.ANAS MUHAMMED SHAMNAD

¶22

OTHER PRESENT:

¶23

PP SREEJA V.

¶24

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14.12.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶25

¶26

Crl.M.C.No.4350 of 2020

¶27

ORDER

¶28

Dated this the 14^th day of December , 2020

¶29

Petitioners are the accused in Crime No.124 of 2019 registered at the Vidya Nagar Police Station

¶30

for offences punishable under Sections 341 and 323 of IPC, now pending as C.C.No.638 of 2019 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Kasaragod. The de facto complainant, at whose instance the crime was registered and the other injured person, are arrayed as respondents 2

¶31

and 3. Annexures-A3 and A4 affidavits have been filed by the respondents 2 and 3 stating that the dispute which led to registration of the crime, has been settled amicably and they have no subsisting grievance in the matter.

¶32

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

¶33

¶34

Crl.M.C.No.4350 of 2020

¶35

have no criminal antecedents.

¶36

3. Having considered the gravity of the offences alleged, nature of the injury caused and having perused the affidavit filed by respondents 2 and 3, the contents of which are submitted to be

¶37

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

¶38

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.

¶39

In the result, this Crl.M.C is allowed. The

¶40

¶41

Crl.M.C.No.4350 of 2020

¶42

proceedings in C.C.No.638 of 2019 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I,

¶43

Kasaragod is quashed.

¶44

Sd/V.G.ARUN JUDGE

¶45

Scl/14.12.2020

¶46

Crl.M.C.No.4350 of 2020

¶47

¶48

APPENDIX

¶49

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶50

ANNEXURE A1 CERTIFIED COPY OF FIRST INFORMATION REPORT CRIME NO.124/2019 OF THE VIDYA NAGAR POLICE STATION.

¶51

ANNEXURE A2 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE CHARGE SHEET IN CRIME NO.124/2019 OF THE VIDYA NAGAR POLICE STATION

¶52

ANNEXURE A3 ORIGINAL AFFIDAVIT DATED 14.9.2020 SWORN IN BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶53

ANNEXURE A4 ORIGINAL AFFIDAVIT DATED 14.9.2020 SWORN IN BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

Muhammed Noufal v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Muhammed Noufal 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

Arjun.R.M Vs State of Kerala

Antony C.T., Vs Sony P.J.

K.Muralidharan Vs State of Kerala

Meera Vs State of Kerala

N.Kumar Vs State of Kerala

Binoy Jacob Vs State of Kerala