Allowed

Shameer v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC9 Mar 2020Crl.MC/794/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court quashed criminal proceedings against the petitioner under Section 482 CrPC. The de facto complainant settled the matter amicably, filed an affidavit, and the investigating officer corroborated the settlement. The petitioner lacked criminal antecedents with no public interest involved.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Misc. Case No. 794 of 2020 is allowed and the entire proceedings in CC No. 226/2016 are quashed.

Shameer Vs the 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 ASHOK MENON

¶4

MONDAY, THE 09TH DAY OF MARCH 2020 / 19TH PHALGUNA, 1941

¶5

Crl.MC.No.794 OF 2020(H)

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC 226/2016 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -II,PUNALUR

¶7

CRIME NO.614/2015 OF Pathanapuram Police Station , Kollam

¶8

PETITIONER/S:

¶9

SHAMEER AGED 30 YEARS S/O.SHAHUL HAMEED, SHAMEENA MANZIL, AMBEDKAR COLONY, MANCODE, PADIRICKAL MURI, PATHANAPURAM VILLAGE AND TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT-689694.

¶10

BY ADVS.

¶11

SRI.MANU RAMACHANDRAN SRI.M.KIRANLAL SRI.T.S.SARATH SRI.R.RAJESH (VARKALA)

¶12

RESPONDENT/S:

¶13

1 THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031.

¶14

2 THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE PATHANAPURAM POLICE STATION, -689694.

¶15

3 IBRAHIM KUTTY

¶16

AGED 63 YEARS S/O.THAMPIKANNU RAWTHER, VILAYIL VEEDU @ VILAYIL VADAKKETHIL, AMBEDKAR COLONY, MANCODE, PADIRICKAL MURI, PATHANAPURAM VILLAGE AND TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT-689694.

¶17

R3 BY ADV. ANSU VARGHESE

¶18

OTHER PRESENT:

¶19

SMT. V. SREEJA (PP)

¶20

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09.03.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

Crl.MC.No.794 OF 2020(H) 2

¶22

O R D E R

¶23

Dated this the 9th day of March 2020

¶24

Petitioner is the sole accused in CC No.226/2016 on the

¶25

files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Punalur for having allegedly committed offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 452, 324 and 427 of IPC.

¶26

The de facto complainant/injured is the 3^rd respondent, who has appeared through counsel and filed affidavit to the effect that the matter has been amicably settled with the petitioner and that he has no grievance against him. A report to that effect has also been obtained from the investigating officer. The petitioner does not have any criminal antecedents. There is no public interest involved.

¶27

In the result, the Crl.M.C. is allowed and the entire proceedings as against the petitioner in CC No.226/2016 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Punalur stands quashed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.

Sd/-

ASHOK MENON

JUDGE

rmm

Crl.MC.No.794 OF 2020(H) 3

¶33

APPENDIX

¶34

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶35

ANNEXURE A1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO.614/2015 OF PATHANAPURAM POLICE STATION, KOLLAM DISTRICT WHICH IS NOW PENDING AS C.C.NO.226/2016 ON THE FILES OF JFMC-II, PUNALUR. ANNEXURE A2 THE ORIGINAL OF THE AFFIDAVIT DATED 20.01.2020 SWORN BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT/DE-FACTO COMPLAINANT.

Shameer v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shameer v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Abhiram S. Babu Vs the State of Kerala

Sreehari U.K Vs the State of Kerala

Harikrishnan Vs State of Kerala

Mary Josephine Vineetha Vs State of Kerala

K.Sreekanth Vs State of Kerala

Ashraf K.T. Vs State of Kerala