Allowed

Abdul Hakkeem v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC17 Nov 2020Crl.MC/4554/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal miscellaneous petition, the High Court of Kerala allowed the petition and quashed the criminal proceedings. The court found that the dispute was resolved and no public interest was involved, relying on settled Supreme Court precedents regarding settlement of inter-petitioner disputes.

What did the court decide?

The criminal proceedings in C.C. 772/2018 before the Judicial Magistrate are quashed.

Abdul Hakkeem 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 17TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2020 / 26TH KARTHIKA, 1942

¶5

Crl.MC.No.4554 OF 2020(H)

¶6

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN CC 772/2018 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -II,HOSDURG

¶7

CRIME NO.60/2018 OF Bekal Police Station , Kasargod

¶8

PETITIONERS:

¶9

1 ABDUL HAKKEEM

¶10

AGED 33 YEARS S/O.HAMZA HAJI, BEKAL, NEAR HYDROSE JUMA MASJID, PALLIKKARA VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK.

¶11

2 ARSHAD.K. AGED 30 YEARS S/O.HAMEED @ CITY HAMEED, CITY HOUSE, MASTHIGUDDE, PALLIKKARA VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK.

¶12

3 MUHAMMED NOUSHAD,

¶13

AGED 38 YEARS S/O.B.ABDULLA, SAHAD MANZIL, BEKAL, PALLIKKARA VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK.

¶14

BY ADV. SRI.A.ARUNKUMAR

¶15

RESPONDENTS:

¶16

1 STATE OF KERALA

¶17

REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF

¶18

KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031.

¶19

2 HUSSAIN AGED 62 YEARS S/O.MOIDU, RESIDING AT KASMI HOUSE, ARANGADI, KANHANGAD VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT671 315.

¶20

3 RAMAKRISHNAN H. AGED 46 YEARS S/O.KANNAN, RESIDING NEAR ALP SCHOOL BIRIKULAM, PARAPPA VILLAGE, VELLARIKKUND TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT-671 315.

¶21

R2-3 BY ADV. VIPIN T JOSE PP RAMESH CHAND THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17.11.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

Crmc 4554/2020

V.G.ARUN, J.

=========================== Crl.M.C.No.4554 of 2020

¶26

===========================

¶27

Dated this the 17^th day of November, 2020

¶28

ORDER

¶29

Petitioners are the accused in Crime No.60 of 2018 registered at the Bekal Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 506(ii), 427 r/w 149 of IPC , now pending as C.C.No.772/2018 of Judicial Magistrate of First Class -II, Hosdurg . The de facto complainant, at whose instance the crime was registered is the 2^nd respondent. Annexure AIII affidavit has been filed by the 2^nd respondent and Annexure AIV affidavit has been filed by the 3^rd respondent, the injured in the case, stating that the dispute is resolved and that they have no subsisting grievance against the petitioners.

¶30

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

¶31

Having considered the gravity of the offences alleged, nature of the injury caused and having perused the affidavit filed by 2^nd and 3^rd respondents, the contents of which are submitted to be true and voluntary, I am satisfied that the dispute is

¶32

Crmc 4554/2020

¶33

¶34

settled and that 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 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.

¶35

In the result, this Crl.M.C is allowed. The proceedings in C.C 772/2018 of Judicial Magistrate of First Class -II, Hosdurg is quashed.

Sd/-

V.G.ARUN JUDGE

lgk

Crmc 4554/2020

APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶43

ANNEXURE AI A TRUE 2018 OF	COPY OF THE BEKAL POLIC	FIR IN CRIME NO.60 OF E STATION.
ANNEXURE AII A TRUE NO.60 O	COPY OF THE F 2018 OF BE	FINAL REPORT IN CRIME KAL POLICE STATION.
ANNEXURE AIII A TRUE THE 2ND	COPY OF THE RESPONDENT.	AFFIDAVIT SWORN TO BY
ANNEXURE AIV A TRUE THE 3RD	COPY OF THE RESPONDENT.	AFFIDAVIT SWORN TO BY

Abdul Hakkeem v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abdul Hakkeem 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

Sanoop Vs State of Kerala

Mini Avikkal Vs State of Kerala

Sreedharan Ambliyadan Vs State of Kerala

Babu Vs the State of Kerala

Rafeeq Vs State of Kerala

Sunil Vijayan P.K. Vs State of Kerala