Fairoos vs State of Kerala

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Feb 29, 2024

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1308939

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

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1308939
Court: Kerala High Court
Judge: Honourable Mr. Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas
Decided On: Feb 29, 2024
Case Number: Crl.MC/1470/2024

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Fairoos

Respondent

State of Kerala

Excerpt

.....class magistrate court-i, parappanangadi, arising out of crime no.439/2022 of parappanangadi police station, registered for the offences under sections 447, 506 and 294(b) r/w section 34 of the indian penal code, 1860. third respondent is the defacto complainant.3. according to the prosecution, the accused had, on 25.04.2022, trespassed into the property of the defacto complainant and threatened her using foul language and thereby committed the offences alleged.4. heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondent, 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.6. though the learned public prosecutor pointed out that the second petitioner is involved in five other crimed having regard to the nature of -:4:- offence alleged and the settlement arrived at between the parties, i am of the view that, no purpose would be achieved by continuing the prosecution.7. in gian singh v. state of punjab and another [(2012) 10 scc303], 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].8. i have perused annexure-a2 affidavit filed by the 3rd 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.....

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS THURSDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 10TH PHALGUNA, 1945 CRL.MC NO. 1470 OF 2024 CRIME NO.439/2022 OF PARAPPANGADI POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM INCC 1062/2022 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I ,PARAPPANANGADI PETITIONERS/ACCUSED:

1 FAIROOS S/O ABDUL LATHEEF, PAREENTE PURAKKAL HOUSE, CHETTIPPADI POST, TIRURANGADI TALUK, MALAAPURAM, KERALA, PIN - 676319 2 AFIR SAHAL S/O HAMSAKOYA, PITHAPPERI HOUSE, 3 NISAMUDEEN S/O SAIDU, KONACHAN HOUSE, 4 SHAHABHAS AGED 24 YEARS S/O ABDULSALAM, KONACHAN HOUSE, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, KERALA, PIN - 676503 BY ADVS. HAMZATH ALI V.K. AYISHA AFRIN A.V.K. -:2:-

MOHAMMED RAEES SAIDALAVI K.K. RESPONDENTS/STATE: 1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031 2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER PARAPPANANGADI POLICE STATION, 3 NOURIN W/O JAMSHAD, ALIKKAKATH HOUSE, CHETTIPADI POST, TIRURANGADI TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 676319 BY ADV MUHAMMED NAVAS A. OTHER PRESENT: SMT. SREEJA V. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29.02.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: -:3:-

BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J.

--------------------------------------- --------------------------------------- Dated this the 29th day of February, 2024

ORDER

Petitioners have invoked the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash all proceedings against them.

2. Petitioners are accused Nos. 1 to 4 in C.C.No.1062/2022 on the

files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Parappanangadi, arising out of Crime No.439/2022 of Parappanangadi Police Station, registered for the offences under Sections 447, 506 and 294(b) r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Third respondent is the defacto complainant.

3. According to the prosecution, the accused had, on 25.04.2022, trespassed into the property of the defacto complainant and threatened her using foul language and thereby committed the offences alleged.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondent, 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.

6. Though the learned Public Prosecutor pointed out that the second petitioner is involved in five other crimed having regard to the nature of -:4:- offence alleged and the settlement arrived at between the parties, I am of the view that, no purpose would be achieved by continuing the prosecution.

7. 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].

8. I have perused Annexure-A2 affidavit filed by the 3rd 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.

9. Accordingly, all proceedings against the petitioners in C.C.No.1062/2022 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Parappanangadi, are quashed.

This Crl.M.C is allowed as above. Sd/- BECHU KURIAN THOMAS JUDGE Jka/29.02.24. -:5:- APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 1470/2024 PETITIONERs’ ANNEXURES Annexure A1 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO. 439 OF 2022 OF PARAPPANANGADI POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT Annexure A2 A TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 27.09.2023

Same Court & Year Kerala · 2024 Same Parties Fairoos vs State of Kerala Same Judge Honourable Mr. Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas