Allowed

Mr. Noufal Rahim, v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC19 Aug 2022Crl.MC/1862/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala quashed the criminal proceedings under Section 482 CrPC against five petitioners accused of offences against the third respondent. The dispute was private in nature and a valid settlement had been arrived at between the parties.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Misc. Case No. 1862 of 2021 allowed; Final Report and all further proceedings in C.C.No.1523/2015 quashed.

Mr. Noufal Rahim, Vs State of Kerala — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 19^TH DAY OF AUGUST 2022 / 28TH SRAVANA, 1944

¶5

CRL.MC NO. 1862 OF 2021

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER IN CC 1523/2015 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

¶7

CLASS , PARAVOOR

¶8

PETITIONER/S:

¶9

1 MR. NOUFAL RAHIM, AGED 30 YEARS S/O RAHIM AND RESIDENT OF POIKAVILA VEEDU, PONGODU, MARUTHIKUNNU P.O.NAVAIKULAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 603, KERALA

¶10

2 MR. ARSHID AGED 29 YEARS S/O ABDUL HAKKIM AND RESIDENT OF SAJEENA MANZIL, KAPPAMVILA, NJARAYIKONAM P.O.THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 602, KERALA, INDIA.

¶11

3 MR. RIYAZ, AGED 29 YEARS S/O BADARUDEEN AND RESIDING OF RIYAZ MANZIL, KARIMBUVILA, NJARAILKONAM P.O.MADAVOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 602, KERALA, INDIA

¶12

4 MR. SUNEER, AGED 29 YEARS S/O SALAHUDEEN AND RESIDING OF SIYAD MANZIL KAPPAMVILA, NJARAYILKONAM P.O.THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 602, KERALA, INDIA

¶13

5 MR. SAFEER KHAN, AGED 31 YEARS S/O FASILUDEEN AND RESIDENT OF 4/590, KANJIRAMVILA VEEDU, MARUTHIKUNNU P.O.NAVAIKULAM-695 603, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA, INDIA

¶14

¶15

Crl.M.C.No. 1862 of 2021

¶16

BY ADVS. NEBIL NIZAR SHRI.AKHIL J CHANDRAN

¶17

RESPONDENT/S:

¶18

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

¶19

2 SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE CHATHANNOOR POLICE STATION, KOLLAM, KERALA

¶20

3 RAJESH R.L S/O RAJENDRAN, RESIDENT OF RATHI NIVAS, ANAIKONAM, MALAYILKADA, MANCHAVILAKOM P.O.NEYYATINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA

¶21

BY ADV AJAY JAYACHANDRAN

¶22

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON

¶23

19.08.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶24

Crl.M.C.No. 1862 of 2021

¶25

¶26

ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A., J

¶27

….....................................

¶28

Crl.M.C.No. 1862 of 2021

¶29

…............................................................ Dated this the 19^th day of August, 2022

¶30

ORDER

¶31

The petitioners are the accused Nos. 1 to 5 in Crime No.1635/2013 of Chathannur Police Station, Kollam, which is now pending as C.C.No.1523/2015 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court (Temporary), Paravur. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 143, 147, 325, 341 and r/w Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶32

The prosecution case is that on 21.08.2013 at about 12:45 p.m., the petitioners have assaulted the 3^rd respondent and caused injuries to him. Annexure AI is the FIR and Annexure A2 is the Final Report submitted by the police in connection with the same. This Crl.M.C is filed for quashing all further proceedings pursuant to Anneuxure A2.

¶33

Heard, Sri. Nebil Nizar, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri. C.S. Hrithwik, the learned Public prosecutor appearing for the State and Sri. Ajay

¶34

Crl.M.C.No. 1862 of 2021

¶35

¶36

Jayachandran, the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3.

¶37

The prayer for quashing the above proceedings is sought for by the petitioners on the ground that, the dispute between the parties has been settled and to substantiate the same, the injured person has sworn Annexure A3. The aforesaid affidavit indicates that, the matter has been settled and the injured person has no subsisting grievance against the petitioners herein. He also conveyed that he has no objection in quashing the proceedings against the petitioners herein. The learned counsel for the 3^rd 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 petitioners herein.

¶38

Going through the materials available on record, it is discernible that, the dispute is basically private in nature and on account of settlement arrived at between the parties, no purpose would be served if the proceedings against the petitioners

¶39

Crl.M.C.No. 1862 of 2021

¶40

¶41

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.

¶42

Accordingly, this Crl.M.C. is allowed. Annexure A2 Final Report in Crime No.1635/2013 of Chathannur Police Station and all further proceedings in C.C.No.1523/2015 pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court (Temporary), Pravur as against the petitioners are hereby quashed.

¶43

Sd/-

¶44

ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A., JUDGE

¶45

Dxy

¶46

Crl.M.C.No. 1862 of 2021

¶47

¶48

APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 1862/2021

¶49

PETITIONER ANNEXURES ANNEXURE A1 FIRST INFORMATION REPORT (FIR) IN 1635/2013 OF CHATHANNUR POLICE STATION, KOLLAM ANNEXURE A2 FINAL REPORT IN FIR NO 1635/2013 ANNEXURE A3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN IN BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT

Mr. Noufal Rahim, v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. Noufal Rahim, 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sajan Philip Vs Station House Officer

Geetha Rani Vs State of Kerala Rep by Public Prosecutor

Sayyed Ibraheemul Khaleelul Buhari Vs the E.S.I. Corporation

Sajilesh Vs State of Kerala

Mohammed Riyas Khan Vs State of Kerala

Rajasekharan Vs State of Kerala