Kerala High Court
Muneer.R.C. S/O.Soppy vs The State Of Kerala on 27 June, 2015
Author: Sunil Thomas
Bench: Sunil Thomas
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS
TUESDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2017/25TH MAGHA, 1938
Crl.MC.No. 682 of 2017 ()
--------------------------
CRIME NO. 713/2010 OF NADAPURAM POLICE STATION , KOZHIKODE
PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED:
---------------------
1. MUNEER.R.C. S/O.SOPPY, AGED 24 YEARS,
RAYAROTH KUNNATH HOUSE, NADAPURAM, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT
2. ANAS ABOOBACKER.P, S/O.AMMED AGED 27 YEARS,
PULAYANTEPARAMBATH HOUSE,
NADAPURAM, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.
3. BASHEER, AGED 24 YEARS,
S/O.AHAMMED, MEETHALE KUTTIYIL HOUSE,
NADAPURAM, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.
4. ABDUL LATHEEF.K.K, S/O.ABDULLA
AGED 33 YEARS, KANNAN KUNNATH HOUSE,
NADAPURAM, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT
5. MUSTHAFA.K.K., S/O. AMMAD,
AGED 41 YEARS, KANNAMKULATH HOUSE,
NADAPURAM, KOZHIKODE
6. AJMAL., S/O. AMMED,
PULAYANTEPARAMBATH HOUSE,
NADAPURAM, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.
7. NAVAS .CP, S/O. AMMED, AGED 33 YEARS,
CHOYIPUTHIYOTTIL HOUSE,
NADAPURAM, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SMT.P.K.PRIYA
RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT:
--------------------------
1. THE STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, REPRESENTING THE S.H.O
NADAPURAM-673505
Crl.MC.No. 682 of 2017 ()
--------------------------
2. NIDEESH KUMAR C.P., AGED 34 YEARS,
S/O.NANU, CHEELUPARAMBATH HOUSE,
AROOR.P.O., PURAMERI AMSOM,
VADAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT-673507
R2 BY ADV. SMT.S.LEKHA
R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.T.R.RANJITH
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
14-02-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.MC.No. 682 of 2017 ()
--------------------------
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES
-----------------------
A1 TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.713/2010 OF NADAPURAM
POLICE STATION.
A2 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTARIZED COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT OF THE
DEFACTO COMPLAINANT IN CRIME NO.713/2010 DATED 27/06/2015 OF
NADAPURAM POLICE STATION.
A3 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN CRL.MC.NO. 4136/2015 DATED
20.7.2015
A4 TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT OF THE DEFACTO COMPLAINANT IN
CRIME NO.713/2010 DATED 21.1.2017 OF NADAPURAM POLICE
STATION.
RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES: NIL
-----------------------
//TRUE COPY//
P.A. TO JUDGE
dlk
SUNIL THOMAS, J.
-------------------------------------------
Crl. M. C. No. 682 of 2017
-------------------------------------------
Dated this the 14th day of February, 2017
O R D E R
The petitioners are the accused in Crime No.713/2010 of Nadapuram Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148 153(A) read with 149 IPC and Sections 3 and 5 of the Explosives Substance Act.
2. The allegation of the prosecution is that, on 18.12.2010 at about 10.30 p.m., the accused attacked the 2nd respondent and his friend, armed with iron pipe and cycle chain and used explosive substances. Political enmity was attributed to the above dispute. It is submitted that the final report has not been laid even now.
3. The petitioners have approached this Court stating that the disputes with the defacto complainant and others have been settled by virtue of Annexure A2 affidavit. Learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent reiterated the averments contained in Annexure A2 and after elaborate consideration of all attending circumstances both parties have resolved to give a quietus to the entire disputes. It was also stated that most of the allegations touching upon the offence under Section 153(A) did not exist and have been falsely Crl. M. C. No. 682 of 2017 2 set up. The learned counsel relied on a judgment of this Court in Crl.M.C.No.5750/2016 which dealt with the issue involving Section 153(A) in an identical circumstance and after an elaborate consideration of all the issues involved therein, quashed the entire proceedings having regard to these facts and circumstances and to ensure peace prevailing in the locality.
4. The learned Public Prosecutor on instructions submitted that the petitioners are not involved in any other crime. It was also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that though there were few other cases and counter cases as a sequel to the dispute that existed at that point of time, most of them relating to the period 2010-2011 have been settled.
5. Having considered these facts, considering the settlement now arrived at and that the dispute of those periods have been voluntarily settled, I feel that, no purpose will be served by prosecuting the petitioners at this length of time. Hence, I am inclined to allow the Crl.M.C. In the result, Crl.M.C. is allowed. All further proceedings in Crime No.713/2010 of Nadapuram Police Station stand quashed.
Sd/-
SUNIL THOMAS, JUDGE.
Pn