Allowed

M.Jafer Sadik v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC25 Oct 2022Crl.MC/2698/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed a criminal miscellaneous petition to quash proceedings for kidnapping under Section 363 IPC. The Court held that since the dispute was private in nature and a settlement was arrived at with no subsisting grievance, invoking Section 482 CrPC was a fit case to quash the proceedings citing Gian Singh v. State of Punjab.

What did the court decide?

Crl.M.C. allowed; Annexure-2 and all further proceedings in L.P No. 15/2006 against petitioners quashed.

M.Jafer Sadik Vs State of Kerala — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 25^TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2022 / 3RD KARTHIKA, 1944

¶5

CRL.MC NO. 2698 OF 2021

¶6

Crime No.740/2001 of Kasaragod Police Station

¶7

PETITIONER/S:

¶8

1 M.JAFER SADIK AGED 47 YEARS SON OF ABDULLA MADATHIL HOUSE MOOTHUKULA PATTUVAM THALIPARAMBA KANNUR, PIN - 670141 2 JUNAID.K.P AGED 42 YEARS SON OF MAMMU KIZHAKKEPURAYILHOUSE SANTHIGIRI CHAPPARAPADAVU KANNUR, PIN - 670581 BY ADV M.BAIJU NOEL

¶9

RESPONDENT/S:

¶10

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

¶11

¶12

Crl.M. C No.2698 of 2021

¶13

2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER KASARGOD POLICE STATION KASARGOD, PIN - 671121 3 ABDUL NIYAS AGED 38 YEARS SON OF ABDUL KAREEM NIYAS MANZIL ERUTHUMKADAVU MUTTATHODY.P.O VIA VIDYANAGAR KASARGOD KASARGOD, PIN - 671123 4 KUNAIS.A.K AGED 39 YEARS SON OF ABDUL KAREEM NIYAS MANZIL ERTHUMKADAVU MUTTATHODY.P.O VIA VIDYANAGAR KASARGOD KASARGOD, PIN - 671123 BY ADVS. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR T.S.LIKHITHA ADV SREEJA V -SR PP

¶14

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25.10.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

¶16

Crl.M. C No.2698 of 2021

¶17

O R D E R

¶18

The petitioners are the accused in Crime No.740/2001 of Kasaragod Police Station which is now included in the long pending register as L.P No. 15/2006 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Kasargod. The offence alleged against the petitioners is punishable under Section 363 of Indian Penal Code.

¶19

2 . The prosecution case is that, on 26.11.2001, the petitioners have kidnapped the 3 rd respondent in connection with some financial transaction. The crime was registered on the basis of the information submitted by the 2 nd respondent who is son of the 3 rd respondent. Annexure-1 is the FIR and Annexure-2 is the final report submitted by the Police. This Crl.MC is filed for quashing all further proceedings pursuant thereto.

¶20

3 . Heard Sri.M.Baiju Noel, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Smt. Sreeja V, the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and Smt. T.S Likhitha, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 3 and 4.

¶21

¶22

Crl.M. C No.2698 of 2021

¶23

4 . 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 respondents 3 and 4 have sworn Annexures-3 and 4 affidavits respectively. The aforesaid affidavits indicate that, the matter has been settled and the respondents 3 and 4 have no subsisting grievance against the petitioners herein. They also conveyed that they have no objection in quashing the proceedings against the petitioners herein. The learned counsel for the respondents Nos.3 and 4 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 respondents 3 and 4 have reiterated that, they do not have any objection in quashing the proceedings

¶24

as they have no subsisting grievance against the petitioners herein.

¶25

5 . 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

¶26

¶27

Crl.M. C No.2698 of 2021

¶28

would be served if the proceedings against the petitioners herein were allowed to continue. In such circumstances, the chances of a successful prosecution are very bleak. Therefore, I am of the view

¶29

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.

¶30

Accordingly, this Crl.M.C. is allowed. Annexure-2 final report in Crime No.740/2001 of Kasaragod Police Station and all further proceedings in L.P No. 15/2006 pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Kasaragod as against the petitioners are hereby quashed.

Sd/-

ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A

JUDGE

rpk

Crl.M. C No.2698 of 2021

¶37

APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 2698/2021

¶38

PETITIONER ANNEXURES

¶39

Annexure1 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR NO 740/2001 OF KASARAGOD POLICE STATION Annexure2 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT DATED 4.3.2004 OF KASARAGOD POLICE STATION Annexure3 AFFIDAVIT DATED 06.05.2021 SOWRN BY THE RESPONDENT 3 Annexure4 AFFIDAVIT DATED 12.05.2021 SOWRN BY THE RESPONDENT 4

M.Jafer Sadik v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Jafer Sadik 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

Shibi Vs State of Kerala

Josy.O.a Vs State of Kerala

Gunasekharan Vs State of Kerala

Kiran Vs State of Kerala

Sanjay Kumar, Vs State of Kerala

Thambi Vs the State of Kerala