Allowed

Anees Muhammed Ashraf v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC23 Aug 2022Crl.MC/4294/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed the petition to quash the FIR registered under Sections 332 IPC and 3 Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act. It held that since the dispute was private in nature and settled with compensation paid, invoking Section 482 Cr.P.C. principles from Gian Singh to quash proceedings was appropriate.

What did the court decide?

Annexure-A1 F.I.R. in crime No.469/2022 of Hosdurg Police Station against the petitioner is quashed.

Anees Muhammed Ashraf 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. TUESDAY, THE 23^RD DAY OF AUGUST 2022 / 1ST BHADRA, 1944 CRL.MC NO. 4294 OF 2022

¶4

PETITIONER/S:

¶5

ANEES MUHAMMED ASHRAF AGED 28 YEARS S/O ASHRAF, AVIYIL HOUSE, KANHANGAD, KASARGOD, KERALA, PIN - 671315 BY ADVS. RAHUL SASI NEETHU PREM VIVEK.P.K MANU K. MURALI ARUN KRISHNA U.S.

¶6

RESPONDENT/S:

¶7

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031 2 PAPPULAL MEENA S/O PANKILAL MEENA, PHULWADA P. O, PHULWADA, SAWAI MADHOPUR DIST., RAJASTAN., PIN - 322214 3 GENERAL MANAGER SOUTHERN RAILWAY, HEAD QUARTERS, PARK TOWN, CHENNAI. REP: BY ITS AUTHORIZED OFFICER. IS IMPLEADED ADDL RESPONDENT NO 3 IN CRL.M.C 4294/2022 AS PER ORDER DATED 4/8/2022 IN CRL.M.A.1/2022 BY ADVS. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR C.S.HRITHWIK MIDU DEV PREM SRI.A.DINESH RAO, SC, RAILWAYS

¶8

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23.08.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

Crl.M.C.No.4294/2022

: 2 :

ORDER

Dated this the 23^rd day of August, 2022

¶13

The petitioner is the accused in crime No.469/2022 of Hosdurg Police Station, which was registered for the offences punishable under Section 332 of the Indian Penal Code and also under Section 3 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984.

¶14

The prosecution case is that, on 07.04.2022 at 5 p.m., the petitioner caused damage to the front panel glass of the ticket counter of Kanhangad Railway Station and caused damage to the tune of `12,723/-. It is also alleged that the 2^nd respondent/ defacto complainant, who was working as a ticket teller sustained injury from the shattered glass panel and thus obstructed his official duty. Annexure-A1 is the F.I.R. and this Crl.M.C. is filed for quashing all further proceedings pursuant to Annexure-A1 F.I.R.

¶15

Heard Sri. Rahul Sasi, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri. C.S. Hrithwik, the learned Senior Public

¶16

Crl.M.C.No.4294/2022

¶17

: 3 :

¶18

Prosecutor for the State and Sri. Midu dev Prem, the learned counsel appearing for the 2^nd respondent and Sri. A. Dinesh Rao, the learned Standing Counsel for the additional 3^rd respondent.

¶19

The prayer for quashing the proceedings is sought mainly on the ground that the dispute between the parties has been settled. Annexure-A3 affidavit sworn by the 2^nd respondent is filed along with this Crl.M.C. to substantiate the settlement. In the said affidavit, the 2^nd respondent had specifically acknowledged the aforesaid settlement and also conveyed the no-objection to quash the proceedings against the petitioner herein. The learned counsel appearing for the 2^nd respondent 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.

¶20

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 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

¶21

Crl.M.C.No.4294/2022

¶22

: 4 :

¶23

account of the settlement, no fruitful purpose would be served by allowing the prosecution to continue.

¶24

It is true that one of the offences under Section 3 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984. However, it is discernible from the records that even as per the prosecution case, the damage caused by the petitioner is an amount of `12,723/- and as per Annexure-A3 it is evident that this amount has already remitted by the petitioner. Therefore, taking note of the settlement, I am inclined to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

¶25

In the result, this Crl.M.C. is allowed and Annexure-A1 F.I.R. submitted in crime No.469/2022 of Hosdurg Police Station, against the petitioner is hereby quashed.

¶26

Sd/ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A. JUDGE

ncd

Crl.M.C.No.4294/2022

: 5 :

APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 4294/2022

¶31

PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure A1 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO. 469 OF 2022 OF HOSDURG POLICE STATION. Annexure A2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT FOR AN AMOUNT OF RS. 12,723/- PAID ON 08.04.2022. Annexure A3 THE ORIGINAL OF THE AFFIDAVIT SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 27.05.2022.

Anees Muhammed Ashraf v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anees Muhammed Ashraf 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

Vechuchira Madhu, Vs C.F.Robert

Dr.Manju.K.Nair Vs the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways

Najumudeen Vs State of Kerala

Sujeebu Vs State of Kerala

Prathyush K.K Vs Muhammed Rifayath.O

Mani Vs State of Kerala