Allowed

Rumais.P v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC22 Aug 2022Crl.MC/689/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal miscellaneous petition, the High Court held that a private dispute settlement with no subsisting grievance makes further prosecution bleak. Relying on Gian Singh, it invoked Section 482 CrPC to quash proceedings against the accused.

What did the court decide?

Further proceedings in C.C. No.148/2018 and the Final Report in Crime No.13/2018 pending before the Magistrate Court are quashed.

Rumais.P Vs State of Kerala — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.

¶4

MONDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF AUGUST 2022 / 31ST SRAVANA, 1944

¶5

CRL.MC NO. 689 OF 2022

¶6

CRIME NO.13/2018 OF Bekal Police Station, Kasargod
C.C.NO.148/2018 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT – II,

¶7

HOSDURG

¶8

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.1 TO 6:

¶9

1RUMAIS.P
AGED 28 YEARS
S/O BASHEER, FATHIMA MANZIL,
KEEZHUR KADAPPURAM, KALANAD VILLAGE,
KASARGOD DISTRICT – 671317

¶10

2SAJID.M.K
AGED 26 YEARS
S/O MUHAMMED KUNHI, AL-MADEENA,
KEEZHUR PADINJARU, KALANAD VILLAGE,
KASARGOD DISTRICT – 671317

¶11

3MAHIN ASHAL.K.A
AGED 26 YEARS
S/O AHAMMED KALLATRA, POYAPPADU HOUSE,
KEEZHUR, KALANAD VILLAGE
KASARGOD DISTRICT., PIN – 671317
4ANTHAYI@ABUL RAHIMAN.K.M
AGED 32 YEARS
S/O MUHAMMEDKUNHI, KANDATHIL HOUSE,
KEEZHUR, KALANAD VILLAGE,
KASARGOD DISTRICT., PIN – 671317

¶12

5IBRAHIM BADUSHA
AGED 23 YEARS
S/O ARIF U.K, PADINHARU KADAPPURAM,
KEEZHUR, KALANAD VILLAGE,
KASARGOD DISTRICT., PIN – 671317
6ABDUL ALFAS K @ ALFAS
AGED 28 YEARS
S/O RASHEED, SAFEENA MANZIL,
KEEZHUR, KALANAD VILLAGE,
KASARGOD DISTRICT., PIN – 671317

¶13

CRL.MC NO. 689 OF 2022

¶14

2

¶15

BY ADVS.
P.K.SUBHASH
K.REEHA KHADER

¶16

RESPONDENT/STATE/COMPLAINANT:

¶17

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

¶18

2ITHISHAM
AGED 21 YEARS
S/O. ABDULLA, BAITHUL MUTHAVA,
KOTTIKKULAM, KOTTIKULAM VILLAGE,
KASARGOD DISTRICT, PIN – 671318

¶19

BY ADV PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
ADV.SUDHEER GOPALAKRISHNAN – PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
ADV SREEHARI INDUKALADHARAN

¶20

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 22.08.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED
THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

CRL.MC NO. 689 OF 2022

¶22

3

¶23

ORDER

¶24

The petitioners are the accused in Crime No.13/2018 of Bakel Police Station which is now pending as C.C. No.148/2018 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court II, Hosdurg. The offences alleged are under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 323 and 324 read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code.

¶25

The prosecution case is that, on 04.01.2018 at 22.30 hours, the accused persons wrongfully restrained the 2^nd respondent/ defacto complainant and assaulted him. Annexure A1 is the First Information Report and Annexure AII is the final report submitted. This Crl.M.C. is filed for quashing all further proceedings pursuant thereto.

¶26

Heard Sri.P.K. Subhash, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri.Sudheer Gopalakrishnan, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and Sri.Sreehari Indukaladharan, learned counsel appearing for the 2^nd respondent.

¶27

The prayer for quashing the above proceedings is sought

¶28

for by the petitioners on the ground that, the dispute between the

¶29

CRL.MC NO. 689 OF 2022

¶30

4

¶31

parties has been settled and to substantiate the same, the injured person has sworn Annexure AIII. 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 2^nd 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.

¶32

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 herein were allowed to continue. In such circumstances, the chances of a successful prosecution are very bleak. Therefore, I am of the view

¶33

¶34

CRL.MC NO. 689 OF 2022

¶35

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.

¶36

Accordingly, this Crl.M.C. is allowed. Annexure AII Final Report in Crime No.13/2018 of Bakel Police Station and all further proceedings in C.C.No.148/2018 pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court II, Hosdurg as against the petitioners are hereby quashed.

¶37

 Sd/-
ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.
JUDGE

¶38

scs

¶39

CRL.MC NO. 689 OF 2022

¶40

6

¶41

APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 689/2022

¶42

PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure ICERTIFIED COPY OF THE F.I.R IN CRIME
NO.13 OF 2018 OF BAKEL POLICE STATION,
KASARGOD
Annexure IICERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN
CRIME NO.13 OF 2018 OF BAKEL POLICE
STATION, KASARGOD
Annexure IIIA TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN TO
BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2

Rumais.P v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rumais.P 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

Sajilesh Vs State of Kerala

Mohammed Riyas Khan Vs State of Kerala

Rajasekharan Vs State of Kerala

Vechuchira Madhu, Vs C.F.Robert

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

Najumudeen Vs State of Kerala