Allowed

Mujeeb v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC22 Mar 2023Crl.MC/2232/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala quashed criminal proceedings against the petitioners in C.C.No.1880/2017 under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The court was satisfied that the dispute was amicably settled, no public interest was involved, and continuing the trial would serve no purpose beyond futility.

What did the court decide?

All proceedings in C.C. No.1880/2017 against the petitioners in the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kakkanad, are quashed.

Mujeeb Vs State of Kerala — Quashing and FIR | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF MARCH 2023 / 1ST CHAITHRA, 1945

¶5

CRL.MC NO. 2232 OF 2018

¶6

IN C.C.NO.1880/2017 ON THE FILES OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT

¶7

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED:

¶8

1MUJEEB
AGED 47 YEARS,
VALIYAVEETIL,VAZHAKKALA,
MOOLEPPADAM ROAD,ERNAKULAM.

¶9

2KANITHA MUJEEB
W/O.MUJEEB,
AGED 31 YEARS,
VALIYAVEETIL,VAZHAKKALA,
MOOLEPPADAM ROAD,ERNAKULAM

¶10

3MUHAMMED HANEEF
AGED 32 YEARS,
WORKED AT-V.M.BUILDERS & PROPERTIES,
KAKKANAD,VAZHAKKALA,ERNAKULAM.

¶11

BY ADVS.
SRI.K.JAJU BABU (SR.)
SRI.BRIJESH MOHAN
SMT.ELIZABETH ANTONY

¶12

RESPONDENTS/STATE & COMPLAINANT:

¶13

1STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
THRIKKAKKARA POLICE STATION-
THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM-682031.

¶14

2SRI.JOHN BOSCO
AGED 43 YEARS,
S/O.T.V.FRANCIS,THANNIPPALLI
HOUSE,VAZHAKKALA,THURUTHEPARAMB ROAD,
ERNAKULAM-682021.

¶15

3THE PASSPORT OFFICER
REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICE,
SHIHAB THANGAL ROAD,
PANAMPILLY NAGAR, COCHIN, ERNAKULAM – 682036

¶16

BY ADVS.
SMT.P.V.DENCY
SRI.V.JOHN SEBASTIAN RALPH
SRI.K.J.JOSEPH ERNAKULAM
SRI.V.JOHN THOMAS
MANU S. DSG OF INDIA

¶17

OTHER PRESENT:

¶18

SMT.SREEJA.V
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶19

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
22.03.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

Crl.M.C.No.2232 of 2018

¶21

¶22

BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J.

¶23

==================== Crl.M.C.No.2232 of 2018

¶24

===================== Dated this the 22^nd day of March, 2023

¶25

ORDER

¶26

Petitioners have invoked the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash all proceedings against them.

¶27

Petitioners are the accused in C.C. No.1880/2017 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kakkanad, arising out of Crime No.1915/2010 of Thrikkakara Police Station, registered for the offences under Sections 323 and 308 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 2^nd respondent is the defacto complainant.

¶28

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondent, apart from the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶29

The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the matter has been settled and hence the proceedings against the petitioners ought to be quashed. It was also submitted that, considering the nature of offences alleged, no purpose would be served by continuing the proceedings.

¶30

In Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Another [(2012) 10 SCC 303], the Apex Court has held that in appropriate cases, the High Court can take note of the amicable resolution of disputes between the victim and the wrongdoer to put an end to the criminal proceedings.

¶31

Crl.M.C.No.2232 of 2018

¶32

¶33

This view was reiterated in Narinder Singh and Others v. State of Punjab and Another [(2014) 6 SCC 466] and Yogendra Yadav and Others v. State of Jharkhand and Another [(2014) 9 SCC 653].

¶34

I have perused Annexure A1 affidavit filed by the 2^nd respondent, produced along with Crl.M.A.No.1 of 2023. The learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that upon verification, it is understood that the affidavit is genuine, and the defacto complainant stands by the contents thereof. I am satisfied that the matter has been settled and no public interest is involved in this case. There is no impediment for granting the prayer for quashing. The continuance of the proceedings will only be an exercise in futility.

¶35

Accordingly, all proceedings against the petitioners in C.C. No.1880/2017 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kakkanad, are quashed.

¶36

This Crl.M.C is allowed as above.

¶37

Sd/-

¶38

BECHU KURIAN THOMAS JUDGE

¶39

Jka/22.03.23.

¶40

Crl.M.C.No.2232 of 2018

¶41

¶42

APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 2232/2018

¶43

PETITIONERS ANNEXURES

¶44

ANNEXURE ACERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
15.01.2016 IN SESSION CASE NO.550/2011
PASSED BY THE FIRST ADDITIONAL ASSISTANT
SESSIONS JUDGE, ERNAKULAM.

¶45

ANNEXURE BCERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER DATED
23.11.2017 IN CMP NO.2724/2016 OF THE
JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT,
KAKKANAD.
ANNEXURE CCERTIFIED COPY OF THE COMPLAINT
NO.M.P /2014 AS NUMBERED IN CC
NO.1880/17 FILED ON BEHALF OF THE 2ND
RESPONDENT BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FIRST
CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-I, ALUVA ON
11.12.2014.
ANNEXURE DCERTIFIED COPY OF THE STATEMENT IN CMP
NO.2724/2016 DATED 14.12.2016 FILED
BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS
MAGISTRATE COURT, KAKKANAD.
ANNEXURE ECERTIFIED COPY OF THE STATEMENT CMP
NO.2724/2016 DATED 26.12.2016 FILED
BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS
MAGISTRATE COURT, KAKKANAD.
ANNEXURE FCERTIFIED COPY OF THE STATEMENT CMP
NO.2724/2016 DATED 03.01.2017 FILED
BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS
MAGISTRATE COURT, KAKKANAD.
Annexure GA TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE
INDIAN PASSPORT NO.G6940178 OF THE
PETITIONER HEREIN.
Annexure HTRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 13.07.2022
ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF REGIONAL
PASSPORT OFFICE TO THE PETITIONER
Annexure IA TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY TO ANNEXURE.H
NOTICE SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER/2ND

¶46

Crl.M.C.No.2232 of 2018

¶47

¶48

PETITIONER BEFORE THE REGIONAL PASSPORT
OFFICER.

¶49

Annexure JTRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 05.02.2020
IN CRL.MC. NO.181/2020 PASSED BY THIS
HON'BLE COURT
Annexure KTRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 20.02.2020
INCRL.MA.NO.2/2020IN
CRL.MC.NO.2421/2019 OF THIS HON'BLE
COURT
Annexure A1AFFIDAVIT DATED 23.02.2023 FILED BY 2ND
RESPONDENT

Mujeeb v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mujeeb 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

Sunish Elavankal Vs the Payyannur Co-Op Town Bank Ltd.

Alex .a @ Anu Vs State of Kerala

Shahul Hameed, Vs State of Kerala

Jayadeva.S.R. @ Jayadevan Vs the State of Kerala

Siju U Vs State of Kerala

Richu Jyothi Vs State of Kerala