Allowed

Ajmal Faisal v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC20 Feb 2024Crl.MC/316/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted quashing of criminal proceedings against five accused persons involved in an assault and attempted murder case under Sections 143, 147, and other sections of the IPC, after being satisfied that the dispute was amicably settled and no public interest was involved.

What did the court decide?

All proceedings against the petitioners in S.C. No. 672/2023 on the files of the Assistant Sessions Court - V, Ernakulam, are quashed.

Ajmal Faisal Vs State of Kerala — Quashing and FIR | Kerala HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 1ST PHALGUNA, 1945
CRL.MC NO. 316 OF 2024

¶5

CRIME NO.979/2022 OF MATTANCHERRY POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM
IN SC 672/2023 OF DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT, ERNAKULAM

¶6

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 TO 5:

¶7

1AJMAL FAISAL
AGED 23 YEARS
S/O FAISAL.M.A,
H NO.CC 7/1202,
KAPPALANDIMUKKU, MATTANCHERY,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN – 682002

¶8

2RINSHAD
AGED 23 YEARS
S/O RIYAS,
H NO.CC 7/516, JEW TOWN,
MATTANCHERY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN – 682002

¶9

3M.A.MUHAMMED AZWIN
AGED 23 YEARS
S/O M.G.ANIL,
H NO.CC 3/557, ASWIN MANZIL,
ERAVELY COLONY, FORT KOCHI,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN – 682002

¶10

4RIMNAS T.R
AGED 23 YEARS
S/O RASHEED,
H NO.CC 12/918, CHETTIYATTU PARAMBU,
PANAYAPPILLY, MATTANCHERY,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN – 682002

¶11

5SHAJAHAN.P.S
AGED 24 YEARS
S/O SHAMSUDEEN,
H NO.CC 11/753, PATTALAMFORT KOCHI,

¶12

Crl.M.C.No.316 of 2024

¶13

-:2:-

¶14

ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN – 682002
BY ADVS.
T.P.SANTHOSH KUMAR
C.H.ABDUL RASAC

¶15

RESPONDENTS/STATE/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:

¶16

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

¶17

2AKSHAY KUMAR
AGED 23 YEARS
S/O BIJU.P.D,
PULIKAYATH HOUSE,
ADIMALI, DEVIKULAM TALUK,
IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN – 685561

¶18

BY ADV.
THEERTHA RAMESHAN

¶19

OTHER PRESENT:

¶20

SRI. NOUSHAD K.A.
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶21

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
20.02.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

Crl.M.C.No.316 of 2024

¶23

-:3:-

¶24

BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J.

¶25

Crl.M.C.No.316 of 2024

¶26

Dated this the 20^th day of February, 2024

¶27

ORDER

¶28

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

¶29

Petitioners are accused Nos. 1 to 5 in S.C. No.672/2023 on the files of the Assistant Sessions Court- V, Ernakulam, arising out of Crime No.979/2022 of Mattanchery Police Station, registered for the offences under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 323, 324, 326 and 308 r/w Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Second respondent is the defacto complainant.

¶30

According to the prosecution, on 17.11.2022, the accused formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and assaulted the defacto complainant inflicting grievous injuries to him and thereby committed the offences alleged.

¶31

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

¶32

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

¶33

Crl.M.C.No.316 of 2024

¶34

-:4:-

¶35

continuing the proceedings.

¶36

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. 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].

¶37

I have perused Annexure-3 affidavit filed by the 2^nd respondent. 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.

¶38

Accordingly, all proceedings against the petitioners in S.C. No.672/2023 on the files of the Assistant Sessions Court- V, Ernakulam, are quashed.

¶39

This Crl.M.C is allowed as above.

¶40

Sd/-

¶41

BECHU KURIAN THOMAS JUDGE

¶42

Jka/20.02.24.

¶43

Crl.M.C.No.316 of 2024

¶44

-:5:-

¶45

APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 316/2024

¶46

PETITIONERS’ ANNEXURES

¶47

Annexure 1TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME.NO.979/2022
OF MATTANCHERY POLICE STATION, ENAKULAM
DISTRICT.
Annexure 2TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN
CRIME.NO.979/2022 OF MATTANCHERY POLICE
STATION, ENAKULAM DISTRICT.
Annexure 3ORIGINAL OF THE AFFIDAVIT HAS BEEN SWORN
IN BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT/DEFACTO
COMPLAINANT.

Ajmal Faisal v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ajmal Faisal 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

Migdad Vs State of Kerala

Priyaraj @ Aniyankunju Vs State of Kerala

Yesudasan Vs State of Kerala

Radhakrishnan Vs Anila Prakash

Bejoy Babu Vs State of Kerala

Marykutty Vs the State of Kerala