MUHAMMED ASHRAF v. STATE OF KERALA
Court: High Court of Kerala
Bench: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
Judgment date:
Case summary
High Court of Kerala judgment dated 2024-07-24. MUHAMMED ASHRAF v. STATE OF KERALA. Read the judgment and case details on LawSphereX.
Judgment text
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS TH WEDNESDAY, THE 24 DAY OF JULY 2024 / 2ND SRAVANA, 1946 CRL. MC NO. 5184 OF 2024 CRIME NO. 223/2020 OF KOLATHUR POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM IN CC NO. 333 OF 2020 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -I, PERINTHALMANNA PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS. 1 TO 6: 1 MUHAMMED ASHRAF AGED 47 YEARS POTTACHOLA HOUSE, MOORKKANAD P. O. , MALAPPURAM, PIN – 679338 2 MUHAMMED RAFEEQ AGED 30 YEARS SON OF ABDUL RASHEED, POTTACHOLA HOUSE, MOORKKANAD P. O. , MALAPPURAM, PIN – 679338 3 MUHAMMED NISSAR AGED 30 YEARS SON OF MAMMU, POTTACHOLA HOUSE, MOORKKANAD P. O. , MALAPPURAM, PIN – 679338 4 FAZIL FIROZE AGED 23 YEARS SON OF SHERIFF, POTTACHOLA HOUSE, MOORKKANAD P. O. , MALAPPURAM, PIN – 679338 5 KAMARUSSAMAN AGED 21 YEARS SON OF MAMMU, POTTACHOLA KANIYARAVIL HOUSE, MOORKKANAD P. O. , MALAPPURAM, PIN - 679338 Crl. M. C. No.
5184 of 2024 -:2:- 6 MUHAMMED NIZAM AGED 20 YEARS SON OF SHERIFF, POTTACHOLA HOUSE, MOORKKANAD P. O. , MALAPPURAM, PIN – 679338 BY ADVS. P. K. NIJOY C. PRABITHA REJOICE B. CHEMBAKASSERIL RESPONDENTS/STATE, DEFACTO COMPLAINANT & INJURED: 1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN – 682031 2 RAIHANATH AGED 45 YEARS WIFE OF LATE KUNHIMUHAMMED, POTTACHOLA KANIYARAVIL HOUSE, POTTACHOLA, MOORKKANAD P. O. , PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM, PIN – 679338 3 THAFSEERA AGED 26 YEARS DAUGHTER OF LATE KUNHIMUHAMMED, POTTACHOLA KANIYARAVIL HOUSE, POTTACHOLA, MOORKKANAD P. O. , PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM, PIN – 679338 4 MOYIN AGED 58 YEARS SON OF MUHAMMED, AYYAPPANKANDATHIL HOUSE, KURUVAMBALAM P. O. , PULAMANTHOLE, PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM, PIN - 679338 5 ABBAS U. AGED 43 YEARS SON OF AYAMUTTY, URAKKOTTIL HOUSE, VENNAKKODE, VALLIKKAPPATTA P. O. , KOOTTILANGADI, PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM, PIN – 679324 BY ADV MAHESH V MENON Crl. M. C. No.
5184 of 2024 -:3:- OTHER PRESENT: SRI. ASHI M. C, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24. 07. 2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Crl. M. C. No. 5184 of 2024 -:4:- BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J. --------------------------------------- Crl. M. C. No. 5184 of 2024 ---------------------------------------th Dated this the 24 day of July, 2024 ORDER Petitioners have invoked the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr. P. C to quash all proceedings against them. 2. Petitioners are accused 1 to 6 in C. C. No. 333/2020 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Perinthalmanna, arising out of Crime No. 223/2020 of Kolathur Police Station, Malappuram District, registered for the offences under Sections 143, 147, 447, 342 and 323 r/w Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Respondents 2 to 5 are the defacto complainant and the injured witnesses. 3. According to the prosecution, the accused had, on 05. 05. 2020 and on 04. 05.
2020, trespassed into the house of the defacto complainant and attacked her and her relatives, and thereby committed the offences alleged. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondents, apart from the learned Public Prosecutor. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the matter has been settled and hence the proceedings against the petitioners ought to be quashed. It was also submitted that, considering the nature of offences alleged, no purpose would be served by continuing the proceedings. Crl. M. C. No. 5184 of 2024 -:5:- 6. In Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Another [(2012) 10 SCC 303], the Apex Court has held 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. This view was reiterated in Narinder Singh and Others v.
State of Punjab and Another [(2014) 6 SCC 466] and Yogendra Yadav and Others v. State of Jharkhand and Another [(2014) 9 SCC 653]. 7. I have perused Annexure-A3 to Annexure-A3(c) affidavits filed by respondents 2 to 5. The learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that upon verification, it is understood that the affidavits are genuine, and the defacto complainant and the other deponents stand by the contents thereof. I am satisfied that the matter has been settled and no public interest is involved in this case. There is no impediment for granting the prayer for quashing. The continuance of the proceedings will only be an exercise in futility. 8. Accordingly, all proceedings against the petitioners in C. C. No. 333/2020 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Perinthalmanna, are quashed. This Crl. M. C is allowed as above. Sd/- BECHU KURIAN THOMAS JUDGE Jka/24. 07. 24. Crl. M. C. No. 5184 of 2024 -:6:- APPENDIX OF CRL.
MC 5184/2024 PETITIONERS’ ANNEXURES Annexure A1 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO. 223 OF 2020 OF THE KOLATHOOR POLICE STATION DATED 6-5-2020 Annexure A2 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT DATED 15-5-2020 IN CRIME NO. 223 OF 2020 OF THE KOLATHOOR POLICE STATION Annexure A2(a) CERTIFIED COPY OF THE WITNESS LIST IN CRIME NO. 223 OF 2020 OF THE KOLATHOOR POLICE STATION Annexure A3 ORIGINAL OF THE AFFIDAVIT DATED 27-2-2024 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT Annexure A3(a) ORIGINAL OF THE AFFIDAVIT DATED 24-5-2024 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT Annexure A3(b) ORIGINAL OF THE AFFIDAVIT DATED 24-5-2024 OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT Annexure A3(c) ORIGINAL OF THE AFFIDAVIT DATED 10-5-2024 OF THE 5TH RESPONDENT
Source: High Court of Kerala. Dataset: Dattam Labs. CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.