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.

Muneer Vs. Jayarajan

Muneer vs Jayarajan

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Nov 10, 2014
~4 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1170269

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
Land Acquisition

Case Summary

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

Land Acquisition

Key legal issue
Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Muneer

Respondent

Jayarajan

Excerpt

.....482 cr.p.c. quashing the prosecution against him in s.c. no. 381/2009 before the additional sessions court (adhoc)-i, kasaragod, which stands transferred to the register of long pending cases as l.p.c.no. 1/2011, on the ground that he and the defacto complainant have amicably settled the whole dispute, and that continuance of prosecution against him will not serve crl.m.c.. no.6329/2014 2 any purpose. the defacto complainant, jayarajan has filed affidavit to the effect that he has settled the dispute with the accused, and that he has no grievance or complaint now. annexure-i series judgments will show that the other accused obtained judgment of acquittal under section 232 cr.p.c. when all the material witnesses including the defacto complainant jayarajan turned hostile to the prosecution. i find that they did not support the prosecution during trial in view of an amicable settlement made out of court. i am definite that continuance of prosecution against the petitioner will not serve any purpose, other than wasting the precious time of the court, when the parties have come to terms and resolved the whole dispute forever. in so many decisions, the honourable supreme court has held that even in cases involving non-compoundable offences the high court can quash the prosecution, if continuance of such prosecution will not serve any purpose.2. on a perusal of records, i find that section 308 ipc was, in fact, incorporated in the proceeding by the police on the basis of a purely hypothetical statement. any way, the parties have crl.m.c.. no.6329/2014 3 really settled the whole dispute and the complainant has no grievance or complaint now. no doubt, he and the others will not, in any manner, support the prosecution, and the prosecution also cannot, in any manner, improve the case. thus, it is only appropriate and just that the prosecution be quashed. in the result, the crl.m.c. is allowed. the prosecution as against the petitioner herein in s.c. no. 381/2009 before.....

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.UBAID MONDAY,THE10H DAY OF NOVEMBER201419TH KARTHIKA, 1936 Crl.MC.No. 6329 of 2014 () --------------------------- SC6652007 of ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC)-I, KASARAGOD CRIME NO. 797/2006 OF KASARAGOD POLICE STATION, KASARGOD DISTRICT ==================== PETITIONER/ACCUSED: ---------------------------------- MUNEER, AGED27YEARS S/O.ASSINAR, R/AT AAHOUSE, GUDDE ROAD ADUKKATHBAIL, KASARAGOD TALUK AND DISTRICT. BY ADVS.SRI.T.B.SHAJIMON SMT.GOVINDU P.RENUKADEVI RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT/STATE: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. JAYARAJAN, AGED52YEARS S/O.KOGGU, R/AT NEERCHAL, KUDULU VILLAGE KASARAGOD TALUK AND DISTRICT.

2. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R1 BY ADV. SRI.LOHITHAKSHAN CHATHADI KANNOTH R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. P.MAYA THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON1011-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Crl.MC.No. 6329 of 2014 () APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS ------------------------------------ ANNEXURE A1- THE COPY OF ORDER

IN S.C.NO.665/2007 & S.C.NO.7/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, KASARAGOD. ANNEXURE A2- THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT FILED BY THE RESPONDENT. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS -------------------------------------- NIL // TRUE COPY // P.A. TO JUDGE SD P. UBAID, J.

--------------------------------------- Crl.M.C. No. 6329 Of 2014 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 10th day of November, 2014 ORDER

Petitioner herein is the original 6th accused in Crime No. 797/2006 of the Kasaragod Police Station. The case against him and the original 2nd accused was split up and re-filed when they absconded from legal process. The other 5 accused in the crime faced trial at two stages and obtained judgment of acquittal under Section 232 Cr.P.C., when all the material witnesses turned hostile to the prosecution. Crime in the said case was registered under Sections 143,147,148,323,324,427 and 308 IPC on the complaint of one Jayarajan. He is the 1st respondent in this proceeding. The petitioner now seeks oder under Section 482 Cr.P.C. quashing the prosecution against him in S.C. No. 381/2009 before the Additional Sessions Court (Adhoc)-I, Kasaragod, which stands transferred to the register of long pending cases as L.P.C.No. 1/2011, on the ground that he and the defacto complainant have amicably settled the whole dispute, and that continuance of prosecution against him will not serve Crl.M.C.. No.6329/2014 2 any purpose. The defacto complainant, Jayarajan has filed affidavit to the effect that he has settled the dispute with the accused, and that he has no grievance or complaint now. Annexure-I series judgments will show that the other accused obtained judgment of acquittal under Section 232 Cr.P.C. when all the material witnesses including the defacto complainant Jayarajan turned hostile to the prosecution. I find that they did not support the prosecution during trial in view of an amicable settlement made out of court. I am definite that continuance of prosecution against the petitioner will not serve any purpose, other than wasting the precious time of the court, when the parties have come to terms and resolved the whole dispute forever. In so many decisions, the Honourable Supreme Court has held that even in cases involving non-compoundable offences the High Court can quash the prosecution, if continuance of such prosecution will not serve any purpose.

2. On a perusal of records, I find that Section 308 IPC was, in fact, incorporated in the proceeding by the police on the basis of a purely hypothetical statement. Any way, the parties have Crl.M.C.. No.6329/2014 3 really settled the whole dispute and the complainant has no grievance or complaint now. No doubt, he and the others will not, in any manner, support the prosecution, and the prosecution also cannot, in any manner, improve the case. Thus, it is only appropriate and just that the prosecution be quashed. In the result, the Crl.M.C. is allowed. The Prosecution as against the petitioner herein in S.C. No. 381/2009 before the Additional Sessions Court, (Adhoc)-I, Kasaragod, which now transferred to the long pending register as L.P.C. No. 1/2011, will stand quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Accordingly, the petitioner will stand released from prosecution. Sd/- P. UBAID, JUDGE sd // TRUE COPY // P.A. TO JUDGE

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial