Alavi v. State Of Kerala
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.UBAID MONDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF DECEMBER 2015/30TH AGRAHAYANA, 1937 Crl.MC.No. 7920 of 2015 () --------------------------- CRIME NO. 1017/2014 OF PERINTHALMANNA POLICE STATION , MALAPPURAM PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED:
------------------------------------------
1. ALAVI AGED 66 YEARS S/O.KUNJAYAMMU, ERATTAPPULAKKAL HOUSE, MUTHIRAMANNA THAZHEKKODU AMSOM DESOM, PERINTHALMANNA TALUK
2. BASHEER ERATTAPPULAKKAL HOUSE, MUTHIRAMANNA THAZHEKKODU AMSOM DESOM, PERINTHALMANNA TALUK
3. HASSAN ERATTAPPULAKKAL HOUSE, MUTHIRAMANNA THAZHEKKODU AMSOM DESOM, PERINTHALMANNA TALUK BY ADV. SRI.K.C.ANTONY MATHEW RESPONDENT(S)/STATE AND DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM 682031(CRIME NO.1017/2014 OF PERINTHALMANNA POLICE STATION)
2. MUHAMMEDALI, AGED 51 YEARS S/O.MUHAMMEDKUTTY, PUKKODANVEETIL HOUSE, MUTHIRAMANNA THAZHEKKODU AMSOM DESOM, PERINTHALMANNA TALUK MALAPPURAM DISTRICT 679322
3. JAMEELA, AGED 42 YEARS W/O.MUHAMMEDALI, PUKKODANVEETIL HOUSE, MUTHIRAMANNA THAZHEKKODU AMSOM DESOM, PERINTHALMANNA TALUK MALAPPURAM DISTRICT 679322
4. NASEER, AGED 30 YEARS S/O.MUHAMMEDKUTTY, PUKKODANVEETIL HOUSE, MUTHIRAMANNA THAZHEKKODU AMSOM DESOM, PERINTHALMANNA TALUK MALAPPURAM DISTRICT 679322
5. HAMSA @ HAMSAPPA, AGED 55 YEARS S/O.MUHAMMEDKUTTY, PUKKODANVEETIL HOUSE, MUTHIRAMANNA THAZHEKKODU AMSOM DESOM, PERINTHALMANNA TALUK MALAPPURAM DISTRICT 679322
6. JAFAR SADHIK, AGED 35 YEARS S/O.MUHAMMEDKUTTY, PUKKODANVEETIL HOUSE, MUTHIRAMANNA THAZHEKKODU AMSOM DESOM, PERINTHALMANNA TALUK MALAPPURAM DISTRICT 679322
7. MUHAMMEDKUTTY, AGED 70 YEARS S/O.POKKERHAJI, POOKKODAN HOUSE, MUTHIRAMANNA THAZHEKKODU AMSOM DESOM, PERINTHALMANNA TALUK MALAPPURAM DISTRICT 679322 R2-R7 BY ADV. SRI.P.SAMSUDIN R1 BY SRI JUSTIN JACOB, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21-12-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.MC.No. 7920 of 2015 () --------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ------------------------------------- ANNEXURE A1:
COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.1017/2014 PERINTHALMANNA POLICE STATION ANNEXURE A2:
THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN IN BY 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 30.11.2015 ANNEXURE A3:
THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN IN BY 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 30.11.2015 ANNEXURE A4:
THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN IN BY 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 10.12.2015 ANNEXURE A5:
THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN IN BY 5TH RESPONDENT DATED 10.12.2015 ANNEXURE A6:
THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN IN BY 6TH RESPONDENT DATED 10.12.2015 ANNEXURE A7:
THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN IN BY 7TH RESPONDENT DATED 10.12.2015 RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: N I L --------------------------------------- //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE JV
P. UBAID, J.
--------------------------------------- Crl.M.C.No.7920 of 2015 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 21st day of December, 2015
O R D E R
The petitioners seek orders quashing the F.I.R and further proceedings in Crime No.1017/2014 of the Perinthalmanna Police Station, registered under Sections 323, 324, 341, 354 and 308 read with 34 IPC, on the complaint of one Muhammedali. Orders are sought on the ground of amicable settlement of the whole dispute between the accused and the de facto complainant out of court. The de facto complainant Muhammedali 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. The other persons who sustained injuries in the alleged incident are the respondent Nos.3 to 7. They have also filed affidavit to the effect that they have settled the dispute with the accused, and they have no grievance or complaint now. On a perusal of the materials, I find that Section 308 IPC was incorporated in the FIR by the police on the basis of a
Crl.M.C.. No. 7920/2015 purely hypothetical statement. Any way, the parties have come to terms, and the whole issues stand resolved.
2. In so many decisions, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that even in cases involving non-compoundable offences, the High Court can quash the prosecution; be it at the crime stage, or at the trial stage, or even at the appellate or revision stage; if the parties have really settled the whole dispute, or if continuance of prosecution will not serve any purpose. Here, I find a real case of settlement between the parties, and I also find that continuance of prosecution in such a situation will not serve any purpose other than wasting the precious time of the court, when the case ultimately comes before the court.
In the result, this petition is allowed. The Crime No.1017/2014 of the Perinthalmanna Police Station will stand quashed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The counter case also stands settled and quashed. Sd/- P. UBAID, JUDGE sd // True Copy // P.A. to Judge