Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

JamaluddIn @ Jamal Vs. the State of Kerala

JamaluddIn @ Jamal vs The State of Kerala

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Sep 19, 2014
~3 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1164666

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Kerala High Court
Judge
Decided On
Subject
Education

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Education

Key legal issue
Education

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

JamaluddIn @ Jamal

Respondent

The State of Kerala

Excerpt

.....crime in the said case was registered on the complaint of one nawas alleging assault and infliction of injuries with weapon. the offences involved are under sections 341, 324 and 506 (ii) of i.p.c. now, they have brought this petition under section 482 of cr.p.c to quash the prosecution on the ground that the parties have come to terms amicably, and that the complainant is not interested in the prosecution now. the de facto complainant nawas is the 2nd respondent in this proceeding. he has filed affidavit to the effect that the dispute stands settled with the accused, and that he has no grievance or complaint. the accused have brought this petition under section 482 of cr.p.c only because two of the offences are not compoundable under the law. in many decisions, the hon'ble supreme court has held that even in cases crl.m.c no.5277 of 2014 2 involving non-compoundable offences, the high court can accept the settlement and quash the prosecution, if the court is well satisfied that the parties have really come to terms, and continuance of such a prosecution will not serve any purpose. this is a matter involving individual disputes and grievances, and so the settlement can well be accepted. i am well satisfied that the parties have really settled the whole dispute, that the de facto complainant has no grievance or complaint now, and that continuance of this prosecution will not serve any purpose. in the result, this petition is allowed. the criminal prosecution against the petitioners herein in c.c no.84 of 2012 before the chief judicial magistrate's court, kasaragod will stand quashed under section 482 of cr.p.c and the petitioners will stand released from prosecution. the bail bond, if any, executed by the petitioners will stand discharged. sd/- p.ubaid judge ma /true copy/ p.s to judge

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.UBAID FRIDAY, THE19H DAY OF SEPTEMBER201428TH BHADRA, 1936 Crl.MC.No. 5277 of 2014 () --------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER

/JUDGMENT

IN CC842012 of C.J.M.,KASARAGOD CRIME NO. 843/2011 OF KASARAGOD POLICE STATION , KASARGOD PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED: ---------------------------- 1. JAMALUDDIN @ JAMAL AGED28YEARS S/O.LATE MOIDU, RESIDING AT MARKETKUNNIL HOUSE KMC XII/691, KASABA VILLAGE, KASARAGOD TALUK KASARAGOD DISTRICT.

2. RAFEEQUE AGED30YEARS S/O.LATE MOIDU, RESIDING AT MARKETKUNNIL HOUSE KMC XII/691, KASABA VILLAGE, KASARAGOD TALUK KASARAGOD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.T.MADHU RESPONDENT(S)/STATE: -------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA THROUGH THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER KASARAGOD POLICE STATION REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM682 031.

2. NAWAS K.M, AGED35YEARS S/O.MOIDU, RESIDING AT R.M.MANZIL, PALLAM ROAD KASARAGOD TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT - 671 121. R2 BY ADV. SMT.BINDUMOL JOSEPH R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.SAREENA GEORGE.P THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON1909-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Crl.MC.No. 5277 of 2014 () --------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ----------------------------- ANNEXURE-A1: THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.843/2011 OF KASARAGOD POLICE STATION. ANNEXURE-A2: THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO.843/2011 OF KASARAGOD POLICE STATION. ANNEXURE-A3: THE AFFIDAVIT DATED228.2014 SWORN IN BY THE2D RESPONDENT ANNEXURE-A4: THE TRUE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE MEMO OF EVIDENCE IN CRIME NO.843/2011 OF KASARGOD POLICE STATION. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS ------------------------------- /TRUE COPY/ P.S TO JUDGE P.UBAID, J.

~~~~~~~~~~ Crl.M.C No.5277 of 2014 ~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated this the 19th September, 2014 ORDER

The petitioners herein are the accused in C.C No.84 of 2012 of the Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court, Kasaragod. Crime in the said case was registered on the complaint of one Nawas alleging assault and infliction of injuries with weapon. The offences involved are under Sections 341, 324 and 506 (ii) of I.P.C. Now, they have brought this petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C to quash the prosecution on the ground that the parties have come to terms amicably, and that the complainant is not interested in the prosecution now. The de facto complainant Nawas is the 2nd respondent in this proceeding. He has filed affidavit to the effect that the dispute stands settled with the accused, and that he has no grievance or complaint. The accused have brought this petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C only because two of the offences are not compoundable under the law. In many decisions, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that even in cases Crl.M.C No.5277 of 2014 2 involving non-compoundable offences, the High Court can accept the settlement and quash the prosecution, if the Court is well satisfied that the parties have really come to terms, and continuance of such a prosecution will not serve any purpose. This is a matter involving individual disputes and grievances, and so the settlement can well be accepted. I am well satisfied that the parties have really settled the whole dispute, that the de facto complainant has no grievance or complaint now, and that continuance of this prosecution will not serve any purpose. In the result, this petition is allowed. The criminal prosecution against the petitioners herein in C.C No.84 of 2012 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court, Kasaragod will stand quashed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C and the petitioners will stand released from prosecution. The bail bond, if any, executed by the petitioners will stand discharged. Sd/- P.UBAID JUDGE ma /True copy/ P.S to Judge

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial