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.

Abid vs State of Kerala

ABID vs State of Kerala

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Jan 23, 2024
~3 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1285024

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
Case Number
Crl.MC/148/2024
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

ABID

Respondent

State of Kerala

Excerpt

.....(temporary), njarackal, arising out of crime no.582/2016 of njarackal police station, registered for the offences under sections 143, 147, 148, 448, 323, 506(ii) and 427 r/w section 149 of the indian penal code, 1860. third respondents is the defacto complainant.3. according to the prosecution, on 29.04.2016, the accused formedthemselves into an unlawful assembly and trespassed into the defacto complainant’s house and assaulted him and threatened his family members after damaging his property 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 matterhas been settled and hence the proceedings against the petitioners ought to be quashed. it was also submitted that, considering the nature of -:4:- offences alleged, no purpose would be served by continuing the proceedings.6. in gian singh v. state of punjab and another [(2012) 10scc 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-b affidavit filed by the third respondent.the learned public prosecutor has submitted that upon verification, it is understood that the affidavit is genuine, and the defacto complainant stands 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 inc.c. no.236/2017 on the files of the.....

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS TUESDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF JANUARY 2024 / 3RD MAGHA, 1945 CRL.MC NO. 148 OF 2024 CRIME NO.582/2016 OF NARAKKAL POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM IN C.C.NO.236/2017 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT (TEMPORARY), NJARAKKAL

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS. 1 TO 7: 1 ABID AGED 39 YEARS S/ O ABDUL KADER, THAIPARAMBIL VEEDU. PUTHUVYPE,ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682508 2 KANNAN AGED 38 YEARS S/O PRAJNAN, KOTTICKAL VEEDU, AYODYAPURAM, PUTHUVYPE,EMAKULAM, PIN - 682508 3 GAZAL K.A AGED 32 YEARS S/O ABU, PULIKKAPARAMBIL VEEDU, AYODYAPURAM,PUTHUVYPE, 4 FAZIL AGED 29 YEARS S/O AZEEZ, PALLIPARMBIL HOUSE, 5 SHAJI AGED 27 YEARS -:2:- S/O NAVAS, PALLIPARAMBIL HOUSE, 6 THANZEER AGED 26 YEARS S/ O SHAHEER, THEPPUKALLINGAL VEEDU,

7 NADIRSHA AGED 28 YEARS S/O NOUSHAD, KUDILILPARAMBIL VEEDU, SOUTH PUTHUVYPE, ERNAKULM, PIN - 682508

BY ADV MANSOOR.B.H. RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT/STATE: 1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031 2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER NJARACKAL POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682503 3 JUDITH ANTONY AGED 55 YEARS W/O ANTONY, ARACKAL HOUSE, PUTHUVYPE,ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682508 BY ADV. SREEJA V., PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23.01.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: -:3:-

BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J.

--------------------------------------- --------------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of January, 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 7 in C.C. No.236/2017 on the files of

the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court (Temporary), Njarackal, arising out of Crime No.582/2016 of Njarackal Police Station, registered for the offences under Sections 143, 147, 148, 448, 323, 506(ii) and 427 r/w Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Third respondents is the defacto complainant.

3. According to the prosecution, on 29.04.2016, the accused formed

themselves into an unlawful assembly and trespassed into the defacto complainant’s house and assaulted him and threatened his family members after damaging his property 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 -:4:- offences alleged, no purpose would be served by continuing the proceedings.

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-B affidavit filed by the third respondent.

The learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that upon verification, it is understood that the affidavit is genuine, and the defacto complainant stands 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.236/2017 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court (Temporary), Njarackal, are quashed. This Crl.M.C is allowed as above. Sd/- BECHU KURIAN THOMAS JUDGE Jka/19.01.24. -:5:- APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 148/2024 PETITIONERS’ ANNEXURES Annexure A COPY OF THE CHARGE SHEET IN CRIME NO.582/2016 OF NJARACKAL POLICE STATION Annexure B NOTARIZED AFFIDAVIT OF THE THIRD RESPONDENT

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial