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.

Niyaz Vs. State of Kerala

Niyaz vs State of Kerala

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Oct 21, 2014
~4 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1166316

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

Niyaz

Respondent

State of Kerala

Excerpt

.....chief judicial magistrate, manjeri as c.c1662011. the original accused numbers 1 to 3 faced trial in the court below in c.c1662011, and obtained a judgment of acquittal dated 28.11.2013 when all the material witnesses including the injured defacto complainant turned hostile in view of the settlement arrived at out of court. when all the material witnesses turned hostile the learned assistant public prosecutor gave up the remaining witnesses. as composition is not possible under the law, the witness probably did not support the prosecution. now the accused numbers 4 and 5 seek orders under section 482 cr.p.c, quashing the prosecution on the ground that they and the injured crl. m.c no. 5920 of 2014 2 persons have come to amicable settlement out of court, and that no purpose will be served in proceeding with the prosecution when the material witnesses would not in any manner support the prosecution.2. annexure c judgment of the trial court in c.c16611 shows that the accused numbers 1 to 3 were acquitted under section 248(1) cr.p.c by the trial court when all the material witnesses including the injured witness turned hostile. the case against the petitioners herein was split up and refiled as c.c3542013 while disposing of c.c1662011. the second respondent has filed affidavit to the effect that he has settled the dispute with the petitioners, and that he has no grievance or complaint. in so many decisions, the hon'ble supreme court has held that even in cases involving non compoundable offences, the high court can quash prosecution under section 482 cr.p.c, if the parties have really settled the dispute which does not involve any public interest or public issue. i am definite that the prosecution cannot in any manner improve the case as against the petitioners herein if at all c.c35413 goes to trial. it is definite that none of the material witnesses including the injured person would support the prosecution. in crl. m.c no. 5920 of 2014 3 such a situation.....

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.UBAID TUESDAY, THE21T DAY OF OCTOBER201429TH ASWINA, 1936 Crl.MC.No. 5920 of 2014 () --------------------------- IN CC3542013 of CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, MANJERI CRIME NO. 293/2011 OF MANJERI POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- 1. NIYAZ S/O.IBRAHIM, KARIPALI HOUSE, KIZHAKKETHALA NSS COLLEGE P.O, MANJERI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

2. SHABEER S/O.ABOOBACKER, CHITHALMANNIL HOUSE, KARUVAMBRAM P.O MANGALASSERY, MANJERI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.VENUGOPAL (1086/92) RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM682031. (REPRESENTING SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE MANJERI).

2. SUNIL BABU W/O.BAVA HAJI, PULAKKAL HOUSE, VALAMBOOR THAZHE ARIPRA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 679 321. R2 BY ADV. SMT.T.J.MARIA GORETTI R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. S. HYMA THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON2110-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Crl.MC.No. 5920 of 2014 () --------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ------------------------------------- ANNEXURE A. COPY OF THE FIRST INFORMATION REPORT IN CRIME NO.293/11 OF MANJERI POLICE STATION. ANNEXURE B. COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT IN CRIME NO.293/11 OF MANJERI POLICE STATION. ANNEXURE C. COPY OF THE JUDGMENT

DATED2811.13 PASSED BY THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, MANJERI, IN CC1662011. ANNEXURE D. COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT EXECUTED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:NIL --------------------------------------- /TRUE COPY/ PATO JUDGE sab P.UBAID, J.

----------------------------- Crl. M.C No. 5920 of 2014 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 21st day of October, 2014. ORDER

The petitioners herein are the original accused numbers 4 and 5 in crime No. 293/2011 of the Manjeri Police Station in Malappuram district. Crime in the said case was registered under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 323 and 326 IPC, on the complaint of one Sunil Babu who is the second respondent in this proceeding. Cognizance on the final report submitted by the police was taken in the court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Manjeri as C.C1662011. The original accused numbers 1 to 3 faced trial in the court below in C.C1662011, and obtained a judgment of acquittal dated 28.11.2013 when all the material witnesses including the injured defacto complainant turned hostile in view of the settlement arrived at out of court. When all the material witnesses turned hostile the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor gave up the remaining witnesses. As composition is not possible under the law, the witness probably did not support the prosecution. Now the accused numbers 4 and 5 seek orders under Section 482 Cr.P.C, quashing the prosecution on the ground that they and the injured Crl. M.C No. 5920 of 2014 2 persons have come to amicable settlement out of court, and that no purpose will be served in proceeding with the prosecution when the material witnesses would not in any manner support the prosecution.

2. Annexure C judgment of the trial court in C.C16611 shows that the accused numbers 1 to 3 were acquitted under Section 248(1) Cr.P.C by the trial court when all the material witnesses including the injured witness turned hostile. The case against the petitioners herein was split up and refiled as C.C3542013 while disposing of C.C1662011. The second respondent has filed affidavit to the effect that he has settled the dispute with the petitioners, and that he has no grievance or complaint. In so many decisions, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that even in cases involving non compoundable offences, the High court can quash prosecution under Section 482 Cr.P.C, if the parties have really settled the dispute which does not involve any public interest or public issue. I am definite that the prosecution cannot in any manner improve the case as against the petitioners herein if at all C.C35413 goes to trial. It is definite that none of the material witnesses including the injured person would support the prosecution. In Crl. M.C No. 5920 of 2014 3 such a situation continuance of prosecution against these petitioners will be a sheer waste of time. In the result, this Crl.M.C is allowed. The prosecution as against the petitioners in C.C3542013 of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Manjeri will stand quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C, and the petitioners will stand released from prosecution. The bail bond, if any, executed by them will stand discharged. P.UBAID, JUDGE sab

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial