Kerala High Court
Rashid vs The State Of Kerala
Author: V Raja Vijayaraghavan
Bench: V Raja Vijayaraghavan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
THURSDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2016/26TH KARTHIKA, 1938
Crl.MC.No. 6507 of 2016 ()
---------------------------
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CP 150/2016 of J.M.F.C.,NADAPURAM DATED
CRIME NO. 408/2011 OF NADAPURAM POLICE STATION , KOZHIKODE
PETITIONER(S)/PETITIONERS/ACCUSED:
---------------------------------
1. RASHID,
S/O SOOPPI,KIZHAKKAYIL VEEDU,VARIKOLI,NADAPURAM.
2. HARIS,
S/O.AMMATH,IDATHIL VEEDU,KIZHAKKAYIL VEEDU,
VARIKOLI,NADAPURAM.
3. AFNAS,
S/O HAMEED,KANAYI THAYYULLATHI,KIZHAKKAYIL VEEDU,
VARIKOLI,NADAPURAM.
4. MUHAMMEDALI,
S/O.KUNHABDULLA MUSALIYAR,CHETTIKULANGARA,
KIZHAKKAYIL VEEDU,VARIKOLI,NADAPURAM.
5. ISMAIL,
S/O.IBRAHIM,KOORKACHALIL,KIZHAKKAYIL VEEDU,
VARIKOLI,NADAPURAM.
6. NOUSHAD,
S/O.MOIDU,PUTHIYEDATH,THAZHAKUNI,KIZHAKKAYIL VEEDU,
VARIKOLI,NADAPURAM.
BY ADV. SMT.P.K.PRIYA
RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT:
--------------------------------------
1. THE STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
REPRESENTING THE S.H.O,NADAPURAM.
2. RENJITH AGED 38 YEARS
S/O GOPALAKRISHNAN
CHAKKIYATH HOUSE
PURAMERI AMSOM, VADAKARA TALUK
KOZHIKODE DISTRICT 673 101
3. BABU, AGED 53 YEARS
S/O POKKAN
THIRUVANGOTH HOUSE, P.O. CHELAKKAD
VADAKARA TALUK KOZHIKODE DISTRICT
R2 & 3 BY ADV. SMT.T.M.BINITHA
R BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, SRI. AMJAD ALI
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17-11-2016,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
CONTD...
:2:
Crl.MC.No. 6507 of 2016 ()
---------------------------
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
-----------------------
ANNEXURE A1 TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO.408/2011 OF NADAPURAM
POLICE STATION ON THE FILES OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE
COURT,NADAPURAM
ANNEXURE A2 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTARIZED COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT OF THE DEFACTO
COMPLAINANT AND THE INJURED IN CRIME NO.408/2011 OF NADAPURAM POLICE STATION.
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : NIL
-----------------------
//TRUE COPY//
P.A. TO JUDGE
SKS
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V, J
----------------------------------------
Crl.M.C. No. 6507 of 2016
-----------------------------------------
Dated this the 17th day of November, 2016
O R D E R
1.This petition is filed under S.482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code ) with a prayer to invoke the extraordinary inherent powers and to quash the pending criminal proceedings.
2.The petitioners herein are the accused Nos. 1 to 6 in C.P.No. 150 of 2016 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Nadapuram. They stand indicted under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 324, 328, 427 r/w Section 149 of the IPC.
3.The prosecution allegation is that on 21.08.2011 at 9.30 p.m, the petitioners herein formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and in prosecution of their common object wrongfully restrained the respondents 2 and 3 and thereafter assaulted them causing injuries.
4.Heard the submissions advanced.
Crl.M.C. No. 6507 of 2016 2
5.The learned counsel appearing for the party respondents submits that the dispute between the parties has been amicably resolved. Attention of this Court is invited to the affidavits filed by them to buttress his submission . It is urged that the dispute is purely personal in nature and would not affect public peace or tranquillity. Summing up it is prayed that the criminal proceedings be terminated to promote peace and harmony.
6.The learned Public Prosecutor after getting instructions has expressed his reservations in the matter of quashing the proceedings on the basis of settlement. It is submitted that the invocation of powers under Section 482 of the Code in a case of this nature is not warranted. However, it is submitted that no other cases are reported against the petitioners.
7.I have considered the submissions .
8.In Gian singh v. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303 Crl.M.C. No. 6507 of 2016 3 Apex Court has laid down 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. It was observed as follows :
"61. In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceedings or continuation of criminal proceedings would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and the wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in the affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceedings."
9.The aforesaid dictum stands reiterated by the Apex Court in Narinder singh v. State of Punjab. (2014) 6 SCC 466, the pertinent observations which are as under:
XXXXXXXXXXXX 29.2. When the parties have reached the settlement and on that basis petition for quashing the criminal Crl.M.C. No. 6507 of 2016 4 proceedings is filed, the guiding factor in such cases would be to secure:
(i) ends of justice, or
(ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any court. While exercising the power the High Court is to form an opinion on either of the aforesaid two objectives.
xxxxxxx xxxxxxx
10.The offence committed by the petitioners cannot be said to be grave and serious having ingredients of extreme mental depravity. It also does not appear that the offence in this case will have a serious impact on the society .It is felt that quashing of proceedings on account of compromise would bring about peace and secure the ends of justice. Even otherwise , persisting with the prosecution would be nothing but a waste of time as the prospects of conviction would be bleak.
11.Having considered all the relevant circumstances, I am of the considered view that this Court will be well justified in invoking its extra ordinary powers under Section 482 of Crl.M.C. No. 6507 of 2016 5 the Code to quash the proceedings.
In the result, this petition will stand allowed. Annexure- A1 final report and all proceedings pursuant thereto against the petitioners now pending as C.P. No. 150 of 2016 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Nadapuram are quashed.
Sd/-
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V. JUDGE SKS //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE