Farees vs State of Kerala

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Oct 06, 2022

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1537306

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/1537306
Court: Kerala High Court
Judge: Honourable Mr.Justice Ziyad Rahman a.a.
Decided On: Oct 06, 2022
Case Number: Crl.MC/6353/2022

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Farees

Respondent

State of Kerala

Excerpt

.....s.shenoy, learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent.4. the prayer for quashing the above proceedings issought for by the petitioners on the ground that, the dispute between the parties has been settled and to substantiate the same, the defacto complainant has sworn annexure a4. the aforesaid affidavit indicates that, the matter has been settled and the defacto complainant has no subsisting grievance against the petitioners herein. he also conveyed that he has no objection in quashing the proceedings against the petitioners herein. the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent/defacto complainant also confirmed the same. the learned public prosecutor upon instructions submitted that the veracity of the settlement was verified by the station house officer concerned and before the sho also, the defacto complainant has reiterated that, he does not have any objection in quashing the proceedings as he has no subsisting grievance against the petitioners herein.5. going through the materials available on record, it isdiscernible that, the dispute is basically private in nature and on account of settlement arrived at between the parties, no purpose would be served if the proceedings against the petitioners herein were allowed to continue. in such circumstances, the chances of a successful prosecution are very bleak. therefore, i am of the view that going by the decision in gian singh v. state of punjab and another [2012(4) klt 108], this is a fit case in which the powers of this court under section 482 of the code of criminal procedure can be invoked.accordingly, this crl.m.c. is allowed. annexure a3 final report in crime no.1736/2019 of perumbavoor police station and all further proceedings in c.c. no.529/2019 before the judicial first class magistrate court i, perumbavoor as against the petitioners are hereby quashed.sd/- ziyad rahman a.a. judge scs appendix of crl.mc 6353/2022 petitioner annexures annexure a1 the certified copy of the fir dated 22.08.2019 in.....

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A. THURSDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2022 / 14TH ASWINA, 1944 CC 529/2019 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS I, PERUMBAVOOR CRIME NO.1736 OF 2019 OF PERUMBAVOOR POLICE STATION PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO.1 TO 4:

1 FAREES AGED 23 YEARS S/O SHAJI V.S, VELLEMVELIL HOUSE, RAYONPURAM P.O, SOURTH VALLAM, PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 683543 2 ROUFAN N.UMMER AGED 23 YEARS, S/O UMMER, NANETHAN HOUSE, SOUTH VALLAM, PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 683543 3 MUHAMMED SIRAJ AGED 23 YEARS S/O KABIR, SHASTHAMKUNNEL HOUSE, M H KAVALA BHAGAM, PONJASSERY P.O., PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 683547 4 UMARUL FAROOKH T.K AGED 24 YEARS S/O KUNJUMUHAMMED, THYKOOTATHIL HOUSE, VAZHAKKALA KARA, THRIKKAKKARA NORTH VILLAGE, THRIKKAKKARA P.O, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT , PIN - 682021 BY ADV K.S.ANEESH

RESPONDENTS/STATE/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT: 1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031 2 JAHANGIR FAYIS AGED 24 YEARS, S/O ABDUL SAMAD, FATHIMA MANSIL HOUSE, KUZHIVELIPPADY BHAGAM, EDATHALA KARA, EDATHALA VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT , PIN - 683561 BY ADV ADV SHYAMDEEP S.SHENOY ADV C S HRITHWIK-SR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06.10.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER

The petitioners are the accused Nos.1 to 4 in Crime No.1736/2019 of Perumbavoor Police Station which is now pending as C.C. No.529/2019 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court I, Perumbavoor. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 341, 323, 324, 294(b) read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code.

2. The prosecution case is that, on 20.08.2019 at 12.45

p.m., the petitioners abused and assaulted the 2nd respondent. Annexure A1 is the First Information Report and Annexure A3 is the final report submitted by the Police. This Crl.M.C. filed for quashing all further proceedings pursuant to Annexure A3.

3. Heard Sri.K.S. Aneesh, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri.C.S. Hrithwik, learned Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri.Shyamdeep S.Shenoy, learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent.

4. The prayer for quashing the above proceedings is

sought for by the petitioners on the ground that, the dispute between the parties has been settled and to substantiate the same, the defacto complainant has sworn Annexure A4. The aforesaid affidavit indicates that, the matter has been settled and the defacto complainant has no subsisting grievance against the petitioners herein. He also conveyed that he has no objection in quashing the proceedings against the petitioners herein. The learned counsel for the 2nd respondent/defacto complainant also confirmed the same. The learned Public Prosecutor upon instructions submitted that the veracity of the settlement was verified by the Station House officer concerned and before the SHO also, the defacto complainant has reiterated that, he does not have any objection in quashing the proceedings as he has no subsisting grievance against the petitioners herein.

5. Going through the materials available on record, it is

discernible that, the dispute is basically private in nature and on account of settlement arrived at between the parties, no purpose would be served if the proceedings against the petitioners herein were allowed to continue. In such circumstances, the chances of a successful prosecution are very bleak. Therefore, I am of the view that going by the decision in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Another [2012(4) KLT 108], this is a fit case in which the powers of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure can be invoked.

Accordingly, this Crl.M.C. is allowed. Annexure A3 Final Report in Crime No.1736/2019 of Perumbavoor Police Station and all further proceedings in C.C. No.529/2019 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court I, Perumbavoor as against the petitioners are hereby quashed.

Sd/- ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A. JUDGE scs APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 6353/2022 PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure A1 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR DATED 22.08.2019 IN CRIME NO.1736/2019 OF PERUMBAVOOR POLICE STATION Annexure A2 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FI STATEMENT OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 22.08.2019 Annexure A3 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT DATED 05.09.2019 IN CRIME NO.1736/2019 Annexure A4 THE AFFIDAVIT DATED 31.08.2022 SWORN BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT

Same Court & Year Kerala · 2022 Same Parties Farees vs State of Kerala Same Judge Honourable Mr.Justice Ziyad Rahman a.a.