Puthukudi Ibrahim vs Abdul Jabbar on 28 January, 2011

[Cites 2, Cited by 1]

Kerala High Court

Puthukudi Ibrahim vs Abdul Jabbar on 28 January, 2011

Bench: Thomas P.Joseph

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl.MC.No. 28 of 2011()


1. PUTHUKUDI IBRAHIM ,S/O.KUNHAHAMMED
                      ...  Petitioner
2. LATHEEF, S/O.MOHAMMED,AGED 50 YEARS
3. ISMAIL K.P., S/O.AHAMMED KUNHI
4. KABEER, S/O.HUSSAIN, AGED 35 YEARS

                        Vs



1. ABDUL JABBAR, S/O.HUSSAIN, AGED 40 YEARS
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE SHO, TALIPARAMBA TALUK,KANNUR DT

                For Petitioner  :SRI.C.K.SREEJITH

                For Respondent  :SRI.GEORGIE SIMON

The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOMAS P.JOSEPH

 Dated :28/01/2011

 O R D E R
                             THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J.
                            --------------------------------------
                               Crl.M.C. No.28 of 2011
                            --------------------------------------
                    Dated this the 28th day of January, 2011.

                                         ORDER

Petitioners are accused 1 to 4 in Crime No.806 of 2010 of Payyannur Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341 and 326 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, "the Code"). Prosecution case is that on 04.12.2010 at about 2 p.m. on account of previous enmity, petitioners formed themselves into an unlawful assembly, committed rioting armed with deadly weapons such as iron rod and reapers wrongfully restrained and voluntarily caused grievous hurt to respondent No.1/defacto complainant. It is alleged that petitioners assaulted respondent No.1 alleging that the latter harassed the father of petitioner No.1. Prayer in this petition is to quash the proceedings against petitioners in view of the settlement between them and respondent No.1.

2. Respondent No.1 appears through Advocate George Simon. Respondent No.1 has sworn an affidavit stating that the matter is settled outside court and that he does not intend to proceed against petitioners further. He also stated that the decision was not due to any compulsion from any part. He says that the real culprits are not proceeded against and that petitioners only helped him to get admitted in the hospital after the incident. Crl.MC No.28/2011 2

3. It is true that offences alleged to have been committed by petitioners involved offence under Section 326 of the Code also but the offence is purely personal to and between petitioners and respondent No.1. Success of the prosecution case depends on the evidence respondent No.1 is to give. In the light of the affidavit sworn by respondent No.1 the chance of prosecution succeeding in this case is bleak. Moreover parties have settled their dispute. In the circumstances I am inclined to allow this petition.

Resultantly this petition is allowed and all proceedings in Crime No.806 of 2010 of Payyannur Police Station against petitioners is quashed.

THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge.

cks

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Kerala High Court