Arshad M v. State Of Kerala
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.UBAID MONDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF MARCH 2015/9TH CHAITHRA, 1937 --------------------------- (CRIME NO. 25/2014 OF PAYANGADI POLICE STATION, KANNUR DISTRICT NOW PENDING AS CC.NO. 241/2014 of JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, PAYYANNUR) --------- PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED:
------------------------------------------
1. ARSHAD M., AGED 25 YEARS S/O. ASHRAF, KHALID QUARTERS, MADAYI AMSOM, NEAR RAILWAY OVER BRIDGE, PAYANGADI, KANNUR.
2. SHANAS, AGED 29 YEARS, S/O. ALI, A.K. QUARTERS, MADAYI AMSOM DESOM, NEAR RAILWAY STATION, PAYANGADI, KANNUR.
3. SANESH P.V, AGED 22 YEARS, S/O. UNNI, PUTHIYA VEETIL HOUSE, MADAYI AMSOM DESOM, NEAR PRATHIBHA TALKIES, PAYANGADI, KANNUR.
4. SHEFEER K.P., AGED 30 YEARS, S/O. AZEEZ, KUNHIKANI PARAMBIL HOUSE MADAYI AMSOM DESOM, PAYANGADI, PALAYAM ROAD, KANNUR DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.SRI.M.SASINDRAN SRI.A.ARUNKUMAR RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS:
----------------------------------------------------
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 682 031.
2. SHAKKIR HUSSAIN M., AGED 33 YEARS, S/O. ABDULLA, FATHIMA MANZIL, MADAI AMSOM, NEAR PAYANGADI OVER BRIDGE, KANNUR - 670 001.
3. SUMAYYA, AGED 31 YEARS, W/O. SHAKKEER HUSSAIN M., M. PAKKARATE CHALIL HOUSE, MADAI, MADAI AMSOM, NEAR PAYANGADI OVER BRIDGE KANNUR- 670 001.
2/-
-----------------------------------
4. AMEER M.V., AGED 34 YEARS, S/O. MUHAMMED, M.V. HOUSE, NEAR PRATHIBHA TALKIES, MADAI AMSOM, DESOM, PAYANGADI, KANNUR- 670 001.
R1 BY (SR) PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.SAREENA GEORGE.P. R2 -R 4 BY ADV. SRI.S.R.SREEJITH THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30-03-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: vmr.
----------------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONERS ANNEXURES -------------------------------------- ANNEXURE A1- A TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.25 OF 2014 OF PAYANGADI POLICE STATION DATED 09/01/2014.
ANNEXURE AII- A TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT DATED 09/01/2014. ANNEXURE AIII- A TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT ENTERED BETWEEN THE PETITIONERS AND THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
ANNEXURE AIV- A TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN TO BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT ENDORSING THE FACTUM OF COMPOUNDING OF THE ABOVE SAID OFFENCES AND THE SETTLEMENT OF DISPUTES BETWEEN THE PARTIES.
ANNEXURE AIV(a) - A TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN TO BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT ENDORSING THE FACTUM OF COMPOUNDING OF THE ABOVE SAID OFFENCES AND THE SETTLEMENT OF DISPUTES BETWEEN THE PARTIES.
ANNEXURE AIV(B)- A TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN TO BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT ENDORSING THE FACTUM OF COMPOUNDING TO THE ABOVE SAID OFFENCES AND THE SETTLEMENT OF DISPUTES BETWEEN THE PARTIES.
RESPONDENTS ANNEXURES :
NIL ----------------------------------------- /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE vmr
P. UBAID, J.
--------------------------------------- Crl.M.C.No.2055 of 2015 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 30th day of March, 2015
O R D E R
The petitioners herein are the accused in C.C.No.241/2014 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Payyannur. They seek orders quashing the prosecution on the ground of amicable settlement of the whole dispute between them and the de facto complainant. Crime in this case was registered under Sections143, 147, 341, 323 and 452 read with 149 IPC on the complaint of one Shakkir Hussain, who is the 2nd respondent in this proceeding brought under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He has filed affidavit to the effect that he has settled the whole dispute with the accused and he has no grievance or complaint now. The other persons who sustained injuries in the alleged incident are the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 in this proceeding. They have also filed affidavit to the effect that they have settled the whole dispute with the accused and they have no grievance or complaint now.
2. In so many decisions, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has
Crl.M.C.. No. 2055/2015 held that even in cases involving non-compoundable offences, the High Court can quash the prosecution in pending proceedings, if the parties have really settled the whole dispute amicably out of court, and continuance of further proceedings will not serve any purpose in such a circumstance of amicable settlement. Here, I find a real and genuine case of settlement between the parties. This is not a case involving any public interest or public issue. The parties have come to terms amicably on the intervention of persons acceptable to both sides, and I am satisfied that the parties are now on quite cordial terms. In such a situation, continuance of the prosecution will not serve any purpose other than wasting the precious time of the court. No doubt, nobody will support the prosecution in such a situation, if the case goes to trial.
In the result, this petition is allowed. The prosecution against the petitioners herein in C.C.No.241/2014 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Payyannur will stand quashed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Accordingly, the petitioners will stand released from prosecution, and the bail bond, if any, executed by them will stand discharged. Sd/- P. UBAID, JUDGE sd