Allowed

Ashraf v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC1 Dec 2022Crl.MC/6450/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal miscellaneous petition seeking quashing of proceedings against the petitioner accused, the Court allowed the quash application. The decision relied on a prior acquittal of the main accused, a subsequent settlement between parties, the petitioner's surrender, and the principle that no purpose would be served by continuing the prosecution.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Miscellaneous Case No. 6450 of 2019 allowed; the Final Report filed by Police and all subsequent proceedings including the trial session case against the petitioner are hereby quashed.

Ashraf Vs the 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 1ST DAY OF DECEMBER 2022 / 10TH AGRAHAYANA, 1944

¶5

CRL.MC NO. 6450 OF 2019

¶6

[AGAINST THE PROCEEDINGS IN S.C.NO.1052/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT-III, MANJERI ARISING OUT OF CRIME
NO.141/2014 OF THE VENGARA POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT]
PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.4:

¶7

ASHRAF
AGED 40 YEARS
S/O.MOOSA,MACHINCHERRY HOUSE,
POTTIPPARA,PARAPPUR AMSOM,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.
C.M.MOHAMMED IQUABAL
P.ABDUL NISHAD

¶8

RESPONDENTS/STATE, DEFACTO COMPLAINANT & INJURED:

¶9

1THE STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM,
KOCHI-682031-FOR THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,VENGARA
POLICE STATION,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.
2SUBRAHMANIAN, AGED 48 YEARS
S/O CHANDU,PATTAYIL HOUSE, POTTIPPARA,
PARAPPUR.P.O,MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.
3ABDUL JABBAR,
S/O.ALAVI,MOORIKKKUNNAN HOUSE,
POTTIPPARA,PARAPPUR.P.O,MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.
FOR R1 BY SMT.SREEJA V., PP
FOR R2 AND R3 BY ADV A.P.NIDHIN KUMAR

¶10

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
30.11.2022, THE COURT ON 01.12.2022 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶11

CRL.MC No.6450 of 2019 2

¶12

O R D E R

¶13

The petitioner is the 4th accused in Crime

¶14

No.141/2014 of Vengara Police Station, which was
registered for the offences punishable under

¶15

Sections 447,323,324,326,427 and 307 r/w.

¶16

Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

¶17

2.The prosecution case is that on

¶18

12.02.2014 at around 21.40 hours, due to the
previous enmity with the 3rd respondent, in
furtherance of their common intention to cause

¶19

his death, accused Nos.1 to 4 criminally
trespassed into the house of the 3rd respondent

¶20

and assaulted him. Accused No.1 stabbed the 3rd
respondent with a knife and accused No.3 had

¶21

beaten him with a torch light. Accused No.4
swatted him with his hands and the 3rd respondent

¶22

had sustained serious injuries due to the

¶23

CRL.MC No.6450 of 2019 3 aforesaid assaults. It is also alleged that,

¶24

accused Nos.1 to 4 smashed the window pane of

¶25

the house and as a result of the same, the 2nd
respondent suffered a loss to the tune of
Rs.5,000/-. Annexure-A is the final report
submitted by the Police. The trial of the said
case was conducted before the Additional
Sessions Court-III, Manjeri in S.C.No.477/2014
wherein the 2ndaccused alone participated.
Annexure-B is the judgment passed after the said
trial, as per which the 2nd accused was found not
guilty as all the witnesses including the victim
had turned hostile to the prosecution.

¶26

3.Later, the petitioner along with accused
Nos.1 and 3 approached this Court by filing

¶27

Crl.M.C.No.3322/2018. When the said Crl.MC was
filed, the petitioners therein were directed to
surrender before the trial court and take bail,
as at the relevant time they were absconding.
However, all the petitioners therein, except the

¶28

CRL.MC No.6450 of 2019 4

¶29

petitioner herein, surrendered. The said Crl.M.C.

¶30

was disposed of as per the order passed on
11.07.2018. In the said order, the prosecution
against accused Nos.1 and 3 was quashed by this
Court on the ground that consequent to the order
of acquittal passed as per Annexure-B judgment
in respect of the 2nd accused, the substratum of

¶31

the prosecution case is lost and hence no

¶32

fruitful purpose would be served, if the
prosecution as against them is allowed to
continue. However, the prayer of the petitioner
was dismissed on the ground that the petitioner
did not surrender before the court despite a
direction in this regard. Therefore, the said
Crl.M.C. was dismissed as far as the petitioner
herein is concerned. But it was observed in the
said order that if the petitioner files a fresh
application, it will be entertained only if he
complies with the order dated 7.6.2018 in which

¶33

the petitioner was directed to surrender before

¶34

CRL.MC No.6450 of 2019 5

¶35

the trial court and seek bail.

¶36

4.This Crl.M.C. is filed by the petitioner

¶37

in such circumstances seeking to quash the
prosecution against him. When this Crl.M.C. came
up for consideration, the petitioner sought some
time to comply with the direction issued by this
Court on 7.6.2018 in Crl.MC No.3322/2018. As per
the order passed on 9.10.2019 in this Crl.M.C, he
was granted permission till 23.10.2019. Later,
he submitted Crl.M.A No.1/2022 seeking further
extension of time as the petitioner could not
comply with the condition as he was abroad. This
Court, as per the order dated 5.8.2022, granted
time for a week from the date of the said order
to comply with the said condition. In compliance
with the direction issued, the petitioner
surrendered before the Additional Sessions
Court-III, Manjeri and now the case against the
petitioner stands re-filed as S.C.No.1052/2022.

¶38

5.Heard Sri.C.M.Mohammed Iquabal, the

¶39

CRL.MC No.6450 of 2019 6

¶40

learned counsel for the petitioner, Smt. Sreeja

¶41

V., the learned Public Prosecutor for the State
and Sri.Nidhin Kumar A.P., the learned counsel
appearing for respondents 2 and 3.

¶42

6.The prayer for quashing the proceedings

¶43

is sought mainly because the dispute between the
parties has been settled and to substantiate the
same, Annexure C and Annexure D affidavits sworn

¶44

by respondents Nos. 2 and 3 are produced. The
settlement is acknowledged in the aforesaid
affidavits and it is also specifically stated
that the 2ndand 3rdrespondents have no

¶45

subsisting grievances against the petitioner
herein. The 2nd and 3rd respondents also clearly
expressed their no objection in quashing the
proceedings against the petitioner. The learned
counsel appearing for the 2nd and 3rd respondents
also confirms the aforesaid settlement and
supports the prayer sought by the petitioner
herein. The veracity of the settlement has been

¶46

CRL.MC No.6450 of 2019 7 examined by the Station House Officer concerned

¶47

by contacting the 2nd and 3rd respondents.

¶48

against the petitioner includes Sections 326 and
307 of IPC, which are serious in nature and

¶49

cannot be quashed in normal circumstances based

¶50

on settlement. However, in this case, it is
evident that the 2nd accused who faced the trial
was acquitted as per Annexure-B judgment. It is
discernible from the observations and findings
made by the learned Sessions Judge that the
prosecution could not adduce any evidence to
substantiate the prosecution case. All the
occurrence witnesses, including the victim,
turned hostile to the prosecution. Further, as

¶51

per the order passed by this Court in

¶52

Crl.M.C.No.3322/2018, this Court quashed the
proceedings against 1st and 3rd accused, against
whom the main allegations are raised, on the

¶53

ground that no purpose would be served by

¶54

CRL.MC No.6450 of 2019 8

¶55

conducting the trial of the said accused, in the

¶56

light of the order of acquittal passed in
respect of the 2ndaccused in Annexure-B
judgment. It is to be noted that, even though
the petitioner was a party to the aforesaid
Crl.M.C, the prosecution against the petitioner
was not quashed by this Court only because, the
petitioner did not surrender before the Sessions
Court as ordered by this Court. Now the

¶57

petitioner, though belatedly, surrendered before
the Sessions Court as permitted and directed by
this Court. Hence the petitioner is entitled to
the benefit granted to accused Nos.1 and 3 in

¶58

the order passed by this Court in

¶59

Crl.M.C.No.3322/2018.

¶60

In such circumstances, this Crl.M.C. is

¶61

allowed and Annexure-A final report submitted by
the Police in Crime No.141/2014 of Vengara

¶62

Police Station and all further proceedings
pursuant to it, including the proceedings in

¶63

CRL.MC No.6450 of 2019 9

¶64

S.C.No.1052/2022 as against the petitioner is

¶65

hereby quashed.

¶66

Sd/-

¶67

 ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.

¶68

JUDGE

¶69

pkk

¶70

CRL.MC No.6450 of 2019 10

¶71

APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 6450/2019

¶72

PETITIONER’S ANNEXURES:
ANNEXURE ATRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME
NO.141/2014 OF THE VENGARA POLICE STATION.
ANNEXURE BTRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN SC NO.477/2014
BEFORE THE ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-
III,MANJERI,DATED 20.1.2018
ANNEXURE CTRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT,DATED 17.8.2019.
ANNEXURE DTRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 3RD
RESPONDENT,DATED 17.8.2019.

Ashraf v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashraf v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rifath Vs State of Kerala

Muhammed Kutty Vs State of Kerala

Kalarkode Venugopalan Nair Vs State of Kerala

M.J.Vijayapadman Vs K.R.Ajithkumar

Abdul Sathar.K.P. Vs State of Kerala

Sree Gokulam Chit and Finance Vs State of Kerala