Allowed

Salahudeen v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC21 Dec 2020Crl.MC/5382/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a Criminal Misc. Case petition to quash criminal proceedings against a neighbour accused of assault. Relying on Supreme Court precedents regarding abuse of process and settlement, the Court quashed the case after the victim submitted an affidavit stating the dispute was settled.

What did the court decide?

Crl.M.C. No.5382 of 2020 allowed; proceedings in Crime No.2790 of 2020 quashed.

Salahudeen 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 21ST DAY OF DECEMBER 2020 / 30TH AGRAHAYANA, 1942

¶5

Crl.MC.No.5382 OF 2020(C)

¶6

CRIME NO.2790/2020 OF ERAVIPURAM POLICE STATION , Kollam

¶7

PETITIONER:

¶8

SALAHUDEEN AGED 42 YEARS S/O. KABEER, RESIDING AT KANJIRAMVILLA VEEDU, UMAYANALLUR P.O, MYLAPURE, KOLLAM 691 589

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.A.CHANDRA BABU

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, OFFICE OF THE ADVOCATE GENERAL, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM 31

¶12

2 SHAMNAD, AGED 39 YEARS S/O. AMANULA KHAN, RESIDING AT KUTTALIL VEEDU, J V NAGAR 19 PALATHARA CHERRY, VADAKKEVILA, ERAVIPURAM, KOLLAM DISTRICT 691 011

¶13

R2 BY ADV. S.R.SUNJITH

¶14

PP SREEJA V.

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21.12.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

Crmc 5382/2020

V.G.ARUN, J.

=========================== Crl.M.C.No.5382 of 2020

¶20

=========================== Dated this the 21^st day of December, 2020

¶21

ORDER

¶22

Petitioner is the accused in Crime No.2790 of 2020 registered at the Eravipuram Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 324 and 308 of IPC. The de facto complainant, at whose instance the crime was registered is the 2^nd respondent. Annexure II affidavit has been filed by the 2^nd respondent, stating that the dispute has been settled and that he has no subsisting grievance against the petitioner.

¶23

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

¶24

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. It is submitted

¶25

that petitioner is the neighbour of respondent and the stab injury is caused due to nail cutter. Moreover, in view of the

¶26

Crmc 5382/2020

¶27

¶28

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

¶29

Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab [(2008) 4 SCC 582] and Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another [(2012) 10

¶30

SCC 303], there is no impediment in granting the relief sought.

¶31

In the result, this Crl.M.C is allowed. The proceedings in Crime No.2790 of 2020 registered at the Eravipuram Police Station is quashed.

Sd/-

V.G.ARUN JUDGE

lgk

Crmc 5382/2020

APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶39

ANNEXURE 1 TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO. 2790/2020 OF THE ERAVIPURAM POLICE STATION, KOLLAM

¶40

ANNEXURE II AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT BEFORE THE NOTARY ADVOCATE

Salahudeen v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Salahudeen 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

Anilkumar R.M., Vs State of Kerala

Eappan M.Thomas Vs State of Kerala

Jinu Vs the State of Kerala

Janaki Sadanandan, Vs v.Sahadevan

Naushad v.U., Vs the State of Kerala

Sheeba R. Vs State of Kerala