Allowed

Subeesh @ Monu, v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC14 Jul 2022Crl.MC/1689/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed criminal proceedings against the 5th accused in a case involving unlawful assembly and assault. Relying on a settlement affidavit and the decision in Gian Singh, the court held that continuing proceedings would serve no purpose in a private dispute with no subsisting grievance.

What did the court decide?

Crl.M.C. No. 1689 of 2019 is allowed; Annexure A1 and all further proceedings in L.P. No. 13/2014 against the petitioner are quashed.

Subeesh @ Monu, Vs State of Kerala — Quashing and FIR | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF JULY 2022 / 23RD ASHADHA, 1944

¶5

CRL.MC NO. 1689 OF 2019

¶6

L.P. NO.13/2017 IN CC 352/2013 OF CHIEF JUDICIAL

¶7

MAGISTRATE, MANJERI

¶8

CRIME NO.882/2009 OF MANJERI POLICE STATION

¶9

PETITIONER/5TH ACCUSED:

¶10

SUBEESH @ MONU,
AGED 32 YEARS
S/O.MOHANDAS, THOTTATHIL HOUSE, ANAKAYAM AMSOM,
IRUMBUZHI, AMBALATHINGAL, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶11

BY ADV M.R.ARUNKUMAR

¶12

RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:

¶13

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

¶14

2ABDUL KAREEM,
AGED 37 YEARS

¶15

S/O.KUNHIMOHAMMED, AVUNJIPURAM HOUSE, IRUMBUZHI P.O.,
ANAKAYAM AMSOM, MALAPPURAM- 696509.

¶16

BY ADV
ADV SRI.K.DILIP
ADV SEENA C -PP

¶17

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
14.07.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

¶19

CRL.MC NO. 1689 OF 2019

¶20

ORDER

¶21

The petitioner is the 5^th accused in Crime No.882/2009 of Manjeri Police Station which was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 323 and 334 read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code.

¶22

The prosecution case is that on 14.12.2009 at 9 p.m., the petitioner along with four other persons formed into an unlawful assembly with deadly weapons, wrongfully restrained the 2^nd respondent assaulted him with an iron pipe. Annexure A1 is the final report submitted by the Police. This Crl.M.C is filed for quashing the proceedings as against the petitioner herein.

¶23

Initially Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Manjeri has taken cognizance of the offences as C.C. No.172/2010 and in the trial conducted all the accused persons except the petitioner participated. The aforesaid trial culminated in Annexure A2 judgment by which all the accused persons who faced the trial were acquitted. The case against the petitioner has been split up and later the same was re-filed as C.C. No.352/2013 and subsequently, the same was included in long pending register and now it is pending as L.P. No.13/2014.

¶24

CRL.MC NO. 1689 OF 2019

¶25

3

¶26

Heard Sri.M.R. Arunkumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Smt.Seena C., learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and Sri.K.Dilip, learned counsel appearing for the 2^nd respondent.

¶27

The prayer for quashing the above proceedings is sought for by the petitioner on the ground that, the dispute between the parties has been settled and to substantiate the same, the injured person has sworn Annexure A3 affidavit. The aforesaid affidavit indicates that, the matter has been settled and the injured person has no subsisting grievance against the petitioner herein. He also conveyed that he has no objection in quashing the proceedings against the petitioner herein. The learned counsel for the 2^nd respondent/injured person also confirmed the same. The learned Public Prosecutor upon instructions submitted that the veracity of the settlement was verified by the Station House officer concerned and before the SHO also, the injured person has reiterated that, he does not have any objection in quashing the proceedings as he has no subsisting grievance against the petitioner herein.

¶28

Going through the materials available on record, it is

¶29

discernible that, the dispute is basically private in nature and on account

¶30

¶31

CRL.MC NO. 1689 OF 2019

¶32

of settlement arrived at between the parties, no purpose would be served if the proceedings against the petitioner herein were allowed to continue. In such circumstances, the chances of a successful prosecution are very bleak. Therefore, I am of the view that going by the decision in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Another [2012(4) KLT 108], this is a fit case in which the powers of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure can be invoked.

¶33

Accordingly, this Crl.M.C. is allowed. Annexure A1 final report in Crime No.882/2009 of Manjeri Police Station and all further proceedings in L.P. No.13/2014 pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Manjeri as against the petitioner are hereby quashed.

¶34

Sd/-
ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.
JUDGE

¶35

scs

¶36

CRL.MC NO. 1689 OF 2019

¶37

¶38

APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 1689/2019

¶39

PETITIONER ANNEXURES
ANNEXURE A1CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN
CRIME NO.882 OF 2009 OF MANJERI POLICE
STATION, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT DATED
30.01.2010 FILED BEFORE THE CHIEF
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, MANJERI.
ANNEXURE A2COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE CHIEF
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, MANJERI DATED
27.11.2013 IN C.C.NO.172 OF 2010.
ANNEXURE A3ORIGINAL OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE
2ND RESPONDENT DATED 26.02.2019.

Subeesh @ Monu, v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Subeesh @ Monu, 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

T.K.Noufel Vs the State of Kerala

Anees Vs State of Kerala

Vineeth.K.K Vs State of Kerala

Soubin Shahir Vs State of Kerala

The Circle Manager (Kerala) Vs State of Kerala

Anzar Khan Vs State of Kerala