The Kerala High Court allowed a petition to quash criminal proceedings punishable under various sections of the IPC, holding that settled disputes requiring lenience should be quashed to avoid abuse of process of court.
Crl.MC. allowed; Proceedings in CP No.56 of 2019 quashed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN
WEDNESDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2020 / 27TH KARTHIKA, 1942
Crl.MC.No.603 OF 2020(E)
PROCEEDINGS IN CP NO.56/2019 ON THE FILES OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, VADAKARA
CRIME NO.751/2016 OF VADAKARA POLICE STATION
PETITIONERS/ACCUSED:
1 NAMBI NOUSHAD AGED 40 YEARS S/O.ADDULLAH, CHAPPOKIL HOUSE, P.O.KOTTAPALLY, VADAKARA, KOZHIKODE - 673 541.
2 SHAMEEM AGED 30 YEARS S/O.MOIDU, PUNATHIL HOUSE, P.O.KOTTAPALLY, VADAKARA, KOZHIKODE - 673 541.
BY ADVS. SRI.SRINATH GIRISH SRI.P.JERIL BABU
RESPONDENTS/STATE AND DE FACTO COMPLAINANT:
1 THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
2 SAJEEVAN M. AGED 33 YEARS S/O.BALAN, MACHIL HOUSE, VALLIATU ROAD, KOTTAPALLI P.O., VADAKARA, KOZHIKODE-673 541.
R2 BY ADV. SRI.HALVI K.S. R1 BY SRI.C.S.HRITHWIK, SR. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18.11.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.MC.No.603 OF 2020(E)
3
V.G.ARUN, J.
----------------------------------------------Crl.M.C.No.603 of 2020
Dated this the 18 th day of November, 2020
O R D E R
Petitioners are the accused in Crime No.751 of 2016 registered at the Vadakara Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 324, 308, 435, 427, 143, 147, 148, 341, 323 read with Section 149 of IPC, now pending as C.P No.56 of 2019 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Vadakara. The de facto complainant, at whose instance the crime was registered, is arrayed as the 2 nd respondent. Annexure – A5 affidavit has been filed by 2 nd respondent stating that the dispute, which led to registration of the crime, has been settled amicably and that he has no subsisting grievance in the matter. It is submitted that based on the settlement, the co-accused were acquitted and the counter cases quashed.
2. Heard the learned Public Prosecutor also, who, on instructions, submits that the petitioners have no criminal antecedents.
3. 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
Crl.MC.No.603 OF 2020(E)
4
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 settlement and the acquittal of the co-accused, 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 .
In the result, this Crl.M.C is allowed. The proceedings in C.P No.56 of 2019 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Vadakara is quashed.
Sd/-
V.G.ARUN, JUDGE
DK
Crl.MC.No.603 OF 2020(E)
5
APPENDIX OF Crl.MC 603/2020
PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:
ANNEXURE A1 TRUE COPY OF THE FIRST INFORMATION REPORT NO.751/2016 DATED 21.05.2016 OF BADAGARA POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE RURAL.
ANNEXURE A2 TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT. ANNEXURE A3 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF EVIDENCE.
ANNEXURE A4 TRUE COPY OF THE WOUND CERTIFICATE OF 2ND RESPONDENT.
ANNEXURE A5 AFFIDAVIT DATED 20.12.2019 SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the criminal proceedings should be quashed in view of the settlement of the dispute and acquittal of co-accused.
Whether the continuance of proceedings amounts to an abuse of process of court.
Whether the relaxation of the bar under Section 482 CrPC or its equivalent applies given the remote possibility of conviction.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of PunjabRelied on¶28
Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab [(2008) 4 SCC 582] · Who else cites this
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and anotherRelied on¶28
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another [(2012) 10 SCC 303] · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Nambai Noshad
Shameem
The State of Kerala
Sajeevan M.
V.G.Arun
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
