Allowed

Moideen Rashid v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC20 Jun 2022Crl.MC/163/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Crl.M.C.163/2022 petition sought quashing of proceedings under Sections 143, 147, 341, 323, 427 IPC in a private dispute where parties settled. Applying Gian Singh principles, the court allowed the petition, quashing the final report and all further criminal proceedings against petitioners.

What did the court decide?

Final report in Crime No.342/2014 and all further proceedings in C.C.No.1131 of 2019 against petitioners were quashed.

Moideen Rashid Vs State of Kerala — Cheating and Forgery | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

Crl.M.C.No.163/22

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.

¶6

MONDAY, THE 20^TH DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 30TH JYAISHTA, 1944

¶7

CRL.MC NO. 163 OF 2022

¶8

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 TO 3 & 6:

¶9

1 MOIDEEN RASHID, AGED 36 YEARS, S/O.MUHAMMED KUNHI, RESIDING AT MOOLADUKKAM, MULIYAR VILLAGE

¶10

KASARGOD, PIN – 671 542.

¶11

2 MUHAMMED SUHAD, AGED 28 YEARS, S/O.ABDULLA KUNHI, RESIDING AT MULADUKKAM, MOOLIYAR VILLAGE,

¶12

KASARGOD, PIN – 671 542.

¶13

3 ABDHUL MAHROOF, AGED 29 YEARS, S/O.ABDUL RAHIM, RESIDING AT KAVUPADIYADUKKAM, MULIYAR VILLAGE KASARGOD, PIN – 671 542.

¶14

4 FAYIZ, AGED 26 YEARS, S/O.MOOSA, RESIDING AT MOOLADUKKAM, MULIYAR VILLAGE, KASARGOD, PIN – 671 542.

¶15

BY ADV SHIBA M SAMUEL

¶16

RESPONDENTS/STATE AND CW1 TO CW2:

¶17

1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN – 682 031.

¶18

2 MAJESH E,

¶19

Crl.M.C.No.163/22

¶20

¶21

AGED 28 YEARSM S/O.RAMAN, NEAR NTHYANADA VAYANASHAL, PUTHUKUDI HOUSE, KADAMBUR VILLAGE, KANNUR, PIN – 670 663.

¶22

3 SANTHOSH K.V., AGED 39 YEARS, S/O.PADMANABHAN, ULIYIL PADMALAYAM, HOUSE, CHAVASSERRY VILLAGE, KANNUR, PIN – 670 663.

¶23

BY ADV MEERA P.A.

¶24

SRI.C S HRITHWIK, SENIOR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶25

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20.06.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

Crl.M.C.No.163/22

O R D E R

Petitioners are the accused in C.C.No.1131 of 2019 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Kasaragod. Aforesaid case arises from crime No.342 of 2014 of Adhoor Police Station, which is registered for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 341, 323, 427 read with Section 149 IPC.

¶30

The prosecution case is that on 27.06.2014 at 2.45 pm the accused persons have formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and assaulted the 2^nd and 3^rd respondents while they were travelling in a tipper lorry and caused damages to the vehicle. A1 is the final report submitted by the police. This Crl.M.C. is filed for quashing all further proceedings pursuant to Annexure-1.

¶31

Heard Smt.Shiba M Samuel, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri.C.S.Hrithwik, learned Public Prosecutor for the State and Smt.Meera P.A, learned counsel for the 2^nd and 3^rd respondents.

¶32

Prayer for quashing the proceedings is sought mainly on the ground that the dispute between the parties has been settled. Annexure-2 and Annexure-3 affidavits sworn by the 2^nd and 3^rd respondents are filed along with this Crl.M.C. to substantiate the settlement. In the said affidavits, the 2^nd and 3^rd respondents had specifically acknowledged the aforesaid settlement and also conveyed the no-objection to quash the proceedings against the petitioners

¶33

Crl.M.C.No.163/22 4

¶34

herein. The learned counsel appearing for the 2^nd and 3^rd respondents also confirms the same. The learned Public Prosecutor, upon instructions, submitted that the Station House Officer concerned has verified the veracity of the same and found it to be genuine.

¶35

The allegations would reveal that the dispute is purely private in nature. In such circumstances, by applying the principles laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State

¶36

of Punjab and Another [(2012) 10 SCC 303] , proceedings can be quashed by invoking the powers of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. This is particularly because, on account of the settlement, no fruitful purpose would be served by allowing the prosecution to continue.

¶37

In the result, this Crl.M.C. is allowed, and Annexure-1 final report submitted in crime No.342 of 2014 of Adhur Police Station and all further proceedings in C.C.No.1131 of 2019 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Kasaragod, against the petitioners are hereby quashed.

¶38

Sd/- ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A. JUDGE

DG/21.6.22

Crl.M.C.No.163/22

APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 163/2022

¶43

PETITIONER ANNEXURES

¶44

Annexure1 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO.342/2014OF ADHUR POLICE STATION, PENDING AS C.C.1131/2019 BEFORE JFCM-1 ON THE FILES OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-1, KASARAGOD Annexure2 THE AFFIDAVIT OF THE RESPONDENT NO.2/CW1 Annexure3 THE AFFIDAVIT OF THE RESPONDENT NO.3/CW2

Moideen Rashid v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Moideen Rashid 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Abdul Kareem Sha Vs State of Kerala

Nirshadali Vs State of Kerala

Akbar Vs State of Kerala

Ismail Vs State of Kerala

Thanooja Vs State of Kerala

Lenin Vs State of Kerala