Allowed

T. Moideen v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC11 Aug 2022Crl.MC/1712/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed a Criminal Miscelllaneous petition quashing further proceedings in a private dispute case involving assault and related offences. The court held that since the dispute was settled, co-accused were acquitted due to lack of evidence, and the remaining case was futile, the powers under Section 482 CrPC were invoked.

What did the court decide?

Further proceedings in S.C.No.467/2022 before the Assistant Sessions Court, Tirur, are quashed.

T. Moideen 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 11TH DAY OF AUGUST 2022 / 20TH SRAVANA, 1944

¶5

CRL.MC NO. 1712 OF 2022

¶6

[AGAINST THE PROCEEDINGS IN L.P. CASE NO.14/1997 OF THE ASSISTANT
SESSIONS COURT, TIRUR ARISING OUT OF CRIME NO.189/1992 OF THE
CHANGARAMKULAM POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT]

¶7

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

¶8

T. MOIDEEN
AGED 52 YEARS
S/O.MOIDUNNI,
THALAPPIL, ALAMCODE P.O.,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT
PIN - 679585

¶9

BY ADV BABU S. NAIR

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

1STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH
COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031
2THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE CHANGARAMKULAM POLICE
STATION,MALAPPURAM DISTRICT
PIN – 679575
3ABDULLA, AGED 59 YEARS,
S/O.ABDURAHIMAN,
AZHAKATH VALAPPIL HOUSE, ALAMCODE,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-679585

¶12

4BAVA, S/O. ABDURAHIMAN, AGED 54 YEARS, AZHAKATH
VALAPPIL HOUSE, ALAMCODE, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT,
[R3 AND R4 ARE IMPLEADED AS PER THE ORDER DATED
27.7.2022 IN CRL.MA. NO.3/2022 IN CRL.MC 1712/2022]
FOR R1 AND R2 BY SHRI.C.S.HRITHWIK, SR.PUBLIC
PROSECUTOR
FOR R3 AND R4 BY ADV.SMT.SHAMSEERA C. ASHRAF.

¶13

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
27.07.2022, THE COURT ON 11.8.2022 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

CRL.MC No.1712 of 2022 2

¶15

O R D E R

¶16

The petitioner is the 12th accused in Crime
No.189/1992 of Changaramkulam Police Station
which was registered for the offences punishable
under Sections 143,147,148,341,324,447,427,307
r/w. Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

¶17

2.The prosecution case is that, on
20.12.1992, CWs.1 and 2, who are the additional
respondents 3 and 4 in this Crl.M.C., were
wrongfully restrained by the accused persons
total 16 in numbers and were assaulted with

¶18

weapons. Annexure-A is the final report
submitted by the Police. Earlier, the trial of
the said case was conducted before the court of
Sessions, Manjeri as S.C.No.158/1994 in which
accused Nos.2,3,9,13 and 15 have participated.
Annexure-B is the judgment passed therein and

¶19

all the said accused who faced trial were

¶20

CRL.MC No.1712 of 2022 3 acquitted by the Sessions Court. The case against the petitioner was split up. Since the petitioner did not appear, it was included in the Long Pending Register as LP No.14/1997 before the Assistant Sessions Court, Thirur. Earlier, the petitioner submitted Crl.MC No.1156/2019 before this Court and the same was

¶21

withdrawn by the petitioner since the Crl.M.C.

¶22

did not contain relevant documents. This

¶23

Crl.M.C. is filed by the petitioner praying for
quashing all further proceedings pursuant to
Annexure-A final report as against the

¶24

petitioner herein.

¶25

consideration before this Court on 14.3.2022,
the petitioner was directed to surrender before
the Court to get the case against him re-filed.
It is reported that, the petitioner has already
surrendered before the Court in compliance with
the same, and the case against him now stands

¶26

CRL.MC No.1712 of 2022 4

¶27

refiled as S.C.No.467/2022 before the Assistant
Sessions Court, Tirur.

¶28

4. Heard Sri.Babu S.Nair, the learned

¶29

counsel for the petitioner, Sri. C.S.Hrithwik,
the learned Public Prosecutor for the State and
Smt.Shamseera C.Ashraf, the learned counsel for
additional respondents 3 and 4.

¶30

5.The prayer for quashing the proceedings
is sought mainly for the reason that, the
dispute between the parties has been settled and

¶31

to substantiate the same, Annexures D and E

¶32

affidavits sworn by respondents 3 and 4,
respectively are produced. The fact of
settlement is acknowledged in the aforesaid
affidavits and it is also specifically stated
that, the 3rd and 4th respondents have no

¶33

subsisting grievances against the petitioner

¶34

herein. The 3rd and 4th respondents also clearly
expressed their no objection in quashing the

¶35

CRL.MC No.1712 of 2022 5

¶36

proceedings against the petitioner. The learned
counsel appearing for the 3rd and 4th respondents
also confirms the aforesaid settlement and
supports the prayer sought for by the petitioner
herein. 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
3rd and 4th respondents have reiterated that,
they do not have any objection in quashing the
proceedings as they have no subsisting
grievances against the petitioner herein.

¶37

6.On going through the nature of

¶38

allegations as contained in Annexure-A final
report, it can be seen that, the dispute is
basically private in nature. Considering the

¶39

settlement arrived at between the parties, the
chances of a successful prosecution are very

¶40

bleak and hence no fruitful purpose would be
served if the proceedings are allowed to

¶41

CRL.MC No.1712 of 2022 6

¶42

continue. Therefore, I am of the view that going

¶43

by the decision in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab

¶44

and Another [2012(4)KLT 108], this is a fit case
in which the powers of this Court under Section
482 Cr.PC can be invoked.

¶45

7.It is true that one of the offences

¶46

alleged is under Section 307 of IPC and,
therefore, normally, prosecution for the said

¶47

offence cannot be quashed on the basis of
settlement alone. However, in this case, the

¶48

petitioner has produced Annexure-B judgment
wherein some of the accused persons were
acquitted by the learned Sessions Judge after a
full-fledged trial.

¶49

8.I have carefully scrutinized the

¶50

contents of Annexure-A final report and also the
observations made in Annexure-B judgment. It is
discernible therefrom that, the injured persons
CWs.1 and 2 were not examined in the said trial.

¶51

The other occurrence witnesses examined by the

¶52

CRL.MC No.1712 of 2022 7 Prosecution are PWs.1 to 4. None of them has supported the prosecution case, and they have clearly stated that, they could not identify the accused persons. The order of acquittal was passed against some of the accused persons in

¶53

the said circumstances. InMoosa v. Sub

¶54

Inspector of Police [2006(1)KLT 552], the Full
Bench of this Court has held that, if the
substratum of the case is lost consequent to the
order of acquittal passed against the co-
accused, proceedings against the remaining
accused persons can be quashed invoking the
power under Section 482 of Cr.PC. While
considering the question whether the substratum
of the case is lost, one crucial aspect to be
noticed is that, in the trial which culminated
in Annexure-B judgment, CWs.1 and 2, who are the
injured persons, were not examined. However, the
aforesaid witnesses have sworn affidavits before
this Court in the form of Annexures D and E,

¶55

CRL.MC No.1712 of 2022 8

¶56

stating that all the matters between the parties

¶57

have been settled and they do not have any
subsisting grievances against the petitioner
herein. In such circumstances, taking note of
the settlement as evidenced by the aforesaid

¶58

observations/findings made by the learned
Sessions Judge in Annexure-B judgment, I am of

¶59

the view that the prosecution against the

¶60

petitioner is a futile exercise and, therefore,
unwarranted.

¶61

inclined to invoke the power under Section 482
of Cr.PC even though one of the offences is

¶62

under Section 307 of IPC.

¶63

 Accordingly, this Crl.M.C. is allowed. All

¶64

further proceedings in S.C.No.467/2022, on the

¶65

file of the Assistant Sessions Court, Tirur
arising out of Crime No.189/1992 of the

¶66

CRL.MC No.1712 of 2022 9 Changaramkulam Police Station, Malappuram

¶67

District, are hereby quashed.

¶68

Sd/-

¶69

 ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.
JUDGE

¶70

pkk

¶71

CRL.MC No.1712 of 2022 10

¶72

The Sessions Case number mentioned in the 1^st line at page No.(4) and in the operative portion at page (8) of the final order dated 11.8.2022 in Crl.M.C.No.1712/2022 stands corrected as SC 461/2022 of Asst. Sessions Court, Tirur instead of SC 467/2022 as per order dated 24.08.2022 in Crl.M.Appl. No.5/2022 in Crl.M.C. No.1712/2022.

¶73

Sd/-

¶74

Deputy Registrar

¶75

CRL.MC No.1712 of 2022 11

¶76

APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 1712/2022

¶77

PETITIONER’S ANNEXURES:

¶78

`Annexure A`	`A TRUE COPY OF` `NO.189/1992 OF THE` `STATION`	`THE CHAR` `CHANGARA`	`GE IN CRIME` `MKULAM POLICE`
`Annexure B`	`A TRUE COPY O` `S.C.NO.158/1994 OF` `COURT, TIRUR DATED,`	`F THE` `THE ASSIS` `28-2-1997`	`JUDGMENT IN` `TANT SESSIONS`
`Annexure C`	`A` `TRUE` `COPY`	`OF` `THE`	`ORDER` `IN`
	`CRL.M.C.NO.1156/2019` `THIS HON'BLE COURT`	`DATED,`	`18-2-2019 OF`

T. Moideen v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T. Moideen 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

Federal Bank Limited Vs State of Kerala

Thadevus @ Shaji Vs State of Kerala

Abdul Kabeer Vs State of Kerala

Sreejith @ Girish Vs State of Kerala

Anil, Vs State of Kerala

Enforcement Officer, Employees Pfo. Vs M/S.Tvm Dist.Tourism Promotion Council