Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Kerala High Court

Sajad vs State Of Kerala on 1 October, 2016

Author: Raja Vijayaraghavan

Bench: V Raja Vijayaraghavan

        

 
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                               PRESENT:

              THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

         MONDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2016/23RD KARTHIKA, 1938

                                     Crl.MC.No. 6754 of 2016 ()
                                         ---------------------------


                    AGAINST CC 1290/2013 of J.M.F.C.-I,NEDUMANGAD
              CRIME NO. 169/2013 OF VENJARAMOODU POLICE STATION ,
                                     THIRUVANANDAPURAM


PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED NOS.1,2,4 & 7 :
------------------------------------

        1.     SAJAD,
               AGED 31, S/O. SHIHABUDEEN,
               KALLUVILA VEEDU, NEAR SREE VALSAM HOTEL,
               MANIKAL VILLAGE,
               KIZHAKUMKARA MURI, VEMBAYAM,
               THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

        2.     NAUSHAD
               AGED 41, S/O. SAINUDEEN,
               NAUFAL MANZIL, PALLIMAN VEEDU,
                MANIKAL VILLAGE, THOZHUTTUM KARA MURI,
                VEMBAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

        3.     SABITH, AGED 33, S/O. MUHAMMED HUSAIN,
               SHEEJA MANZIL, KARINJAMKONAM,
               MANIKAL VILLAGE, THOZHUTHUM KARA MURI,
               KOPPAM,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

        4.     SHEMEER,
               AGED 26, S/O. ABDUL KHARIM,
               VILAYIL VEEDU, KATTAKAL,
               MANIKAL VILLAGE, THOZHUTHUM KARA MURI,
                KOPPAM,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.


                   BY ADV. SRI.M.ABDUL RASHEED

Crl.M.C.No.6754/2016                      2




RESPONDENTS/STATE & DE-FACTO COMPLAINANT (CW1):
-----------------------

                    STATE OF KERALA
                   THROUGH STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
                   VENJARAMOODU POLICE STATION,
                   REP.BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
                   HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM
                   PIN-682031


                   R2 BY ADV. SRI.V.VISAL AJAYAN
                   R BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, SRI.T.R.RENJITH

            THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
14-11-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

Crl.MC.No. 6754 of 2016 ()
---------------------------

APPENDIX

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
-----------------------
ANNEXURE A-1: CERTIFIED COPY OF THE F.I.R IN CRIME NO.169/2013 OF
VENJARAMOOD POLICE STATION

ANNEXURE A-2: CERTIFIED COPYOF THE CHARGE SHEET IN C.C.NO.1290/2013
PENDING BEFORE THEJUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-1,
NEDUMANGAD.

ANNEXURE A-3: ORIGINAL AFFIDAVIT DATED 1.10.2016 SIGNED BY THE DE-
FACTO COMPLAINANT

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS
-----------------------



            RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN, V., J.
           ------------------------------------------
                Crl.M.C. No.6754 of 2016
           ------------------------------------------
         Dated this the 14th day of November, 2016


                          O R D E R

~~~~~~~~

1.The petitioners are the accused Nos. 1, 2, 4 and 7 in C.C.No.1290 of 2013 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of 1st Class-I, Nedumangad. They face allegations of having committed offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 149, 294(b), 323, 447, 427 and 452 of the IPC.

2.The Prosecution allegation is that the petitioners herein along with four named persons and some others who could be identified at sight entered the Sreevalsam Bar and after consuming alcohol assaulted the Bar Manager and thereafter committed mischief inside the Bar.  Crl.M.C. No.6754 of 2016 -2-

3.In this petition, the proceedings are sought to be quashed on the ground that the dispute has been settled with the Bar Manager. Reference is made to the affidavit, which is sworn to by the 2nd respondent to bring home the point that the continuance of criminal proceeding is nothing but an abuse of process.

4.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned Public Prosecutor.

5.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that in view of the settlement arrived at between the petitioners herein and the party respondent, this Court will be justified in quashing the proceedings. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the submissions and submitted that accused Nos.3, 5 and 6, are not before this Court. In that view of the matter, termination of the proceedings against some of the accused will irretrievably damage the  Crl.M.C. No.6754 of 2016 -3- case of the prosecution is the submission.

6.I have considered the rival submissions and have gone through the materials on record. As rightly submitted by the learned prosecutor, only some of the accused are before this Court seeking to quash the proceedings on the basis of a reported settlement. There is a specific allegation by the prosecution that the overt acts were commited by a group of persons in prosecution of their common object. It will not be in the intererst of justice to quash the proceedings against some of the accused and let the others face the trial, more so in a case in which they have been roped in under section 149 of the IPC .

7.The inherent power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. though unrestricted and undefined should not be capriciously or arbitrarily exercised, but should be exercised in appropriate cases, ex debito justitiae to do real and substantial justice for the administration of which alone  Crl.M.C. No.6754 of 2016 -4- the courts exist. The same has to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with great caution.

8.Having regard to the facts and circumstances , I do not find any justifiable grounds for quashing the proceedings in exercise of the inherent powers conferred under section 482 Cr.P.C.

The petition will stand dismissed.

Sd/-

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN, V. JUDGE Ps/14/11/16  Crl.M.C. No.6754 of 2016 -5-