Allowed

Muhammed Anees, v. Sub Inspector of Police

Kerala HC13 Mar 2024Crl.MC/78/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash proceedings. The court found that an amicable settlement was reached between the accused and the defacto complainant, evidenced by a genuine agreement. Consequently, continuing the trial was deemed an exercise in futility, and the proceedings were quashed.

What did the court decide?

All proceedings against the petitioners in C.C.No.304/2019 filed before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Payyoli, are quashed.

Muhammed Anees, Vs Sub Inspector of Police — 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

WEDNESDAY, THE 13^TH DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 23RD PHALGUNA, 1945

¶5

CRL.MC NO. 78 OF 2024

¶6

CRIME NO.0093/2019 OF Payyoli Police Station, Kozhikode CC NO.304 OF 2019 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, PAYYOLI PETITIONERS/ ACCUSED 1 TO 3, DEFACTO COMPLAINANT AND CW2 :

¶7

1 MUHAMMED ANEES,

¶8

AGED 22 YEARS, RESIDING AT PAMPATTIL HOUSE, KEEZHOOR PO, PAYYOLI, KOZHIKODE, PIN – 673 522

¶9

2 RASHIQ, AGED 22 YEARS S/O ABDURAHIMAN, RESIDING AT ODIYIL HOUSE, KEEZHOOR PO, PAYYOLI, KOZHIKODE, PIN – 673 522

¶10

3 MUHAMMED JASIM, AGED 23 YEARS, S/O ANWAR, RESIDING AT KALATHIL HOUSE, PAYYOLI PO, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673522

¶11

4 ABDUL BASITH, AGED 22 YEARS, S/O AMMAD, RESIDING AT NAMVIDAMVEETTIL HOUSE, CHENAYI, EDAVARAD, PERAMBRA, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673525

¶12

5 SHAMSAD, AGED 22 YEARS, S/O KUNJABDULLA, RESIDING AT VAZHAYIL HOUSE, KAYANNA BAZAAR P.O., PERAMBRA, KOZHIKODE, PIN – 673 525

¶13

BY ADV K.V.RASHMI

¶14

RESPONDENT/ RESPONDENT :

¶15

1 SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PAYYOLI POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673522

¶16

CRL.MC NO. 78 OF 2024

¶17

¶18

2 STATE OF KERALA REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN – 682 031

¶19

BY SRI.T.R.RANJITH, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶20

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13.03.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

CRL.MC NO. 78 OF 2024

¶22

¶23

BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J.

¶24

Crl.M.C.No.78 of 2024

¶25

Dated this the 13^th day of March, 2024

¶26

ORDER

¶27

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

¶28

Petitioners are accused Nos.1 to 3 in C.C.No.304/2019 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Payyoli, arising out of Crime No.93/2019 of Payyoli Police Station, Kozhikode, registered for the offences under Sections 143, 147, 341, 323 and 325 r/w Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 4^th petitioner is the defacto complainant.

¶29

According to the prosecution, the accused had, on 12.02.2019 formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and assaulted the defacto complainant and thereby committed the offences alleged.

¶30

Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶31

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.

¶32

CRL.MC NO. 78 OF 2024

¶33

¶34

In Gian Singh v. State of Punjab [(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 v. State of Punjab [(2014) 6 SCC 466] and Yogendra Yadav and Others v. State of Jharkhand and Another [(2014) 9 SCC 653] .

¶35

Since there was a confusion regarding the name of the defacto complainant, the petitioners as well as the defacto complainant was asked to be present in Court today. As the defacto complainant is presently residing abroad, he appeared online, while the petitioners 1 to 3 appeared personally in Court.

¶36

In the FIR, the name of the defacto complainant is shown as 'Muhammed Basith', while in the statement given to the police, he has referred to himself as 'Abdul Basith'. The defacto complainant submitted through video conferencing that his actual name is 'Abdul Basith', as evidenced by his passport, which was shown to the Court. He further stated that though he is known by the name 'Abdul Basith', in the FIR, there was a mistake. He even identified the 3 accused and stated that the matter has been settled between them.

¶37

I have perused Annexure C agreement signed by the petitioners and Sri.Abdul Basith. The learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that

¶38

¶39

CRL.MC NO. 78 OF 2024

¶40

upon verification, it is understood that the agreement is genuine, and the petitioners stand 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.

¶41

The learned Public Prosecutor pointed out that the final report as well as the FIR refer to the fourth petitioner as 'Muhammed Basith', which is an incorrect name for Abdul Basith. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the fourth petitioner has been mentioned in this criminal miscellaneous case as ‘Abdul Basith’ itself, which is his correct name.

¶42

Accordingly, all proceedings against the petitioners in C.C.No.304/2019 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Payyoli, are quashed.

¶43

This Crl.M.C is allowed.

¶44

Sd/- BECHU KURIAN THOMAS JUDGE

¶45

RKM

¶46

CRL.MC NO. 78 OF 2024

¶47

¶48

APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 78/2024

¶49

PETITIONERS' ANNEXURES :

¶50

Annexure A A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR IN CR. NO. 0093/2019 REGISTERED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 13.02.2019 Annexure B A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT ALONG WITH THE STATEMENT OF WITNESSES AND THE WITNESS LIST SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 25.05.2019 Annexure C A TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 13.09.2022

Muhammed Anees, v. Sub Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Muhammed Anees, v. Sub Inspector of Police

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

Nandakumar, Vs Abdul Majeed

Rasheed.P.T Vs Union of India

Nandu Vs State of Kerala

Sarada T.S Vs the State of Kerala

Abhijith @ Abith, Vs State of Kerala

Binil Vs State of Kerala