Yousaf Vs. Rafeeq - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1165770
SubjectCriminal
CourtKerala High Court
Decided OnOct-10-2014
JudgeHonourable Mr. Justice P.Ubaid
AppellantYousaf
RespondentRafeeq
Excerpt:
in the high court of kerala at ernakulam present: the honourable mr. justice p.ubaid friday, the10h day of october201418th aswina, 1936 crl.mc.no. 5607 of 2014 () --------------------------- against cp2202014 of j.m.f.c., nadapuram petitioner(s)/accused no.1 to3 ----------------------------------------- 1. yousaf, s/o.ammad aged49years aringattil house, valayam p.o, vadakara taluk.2. sadique, s/o.yousaf, aringattil house, valayam p.o vadakara taluk.3. sajeer, s/o.yousaf aringattil house, valayam p.o, vadakara taluk. by adv. sri.sunny mathew respondent(s)/complainant and state: ------------------------------------------------- 1. rafeeq s/o.sooppy, kakkudukkil house, cherumoth valayam p.o, vadakara taluk. 673 001 2. the sub inspector of police valayam police station, kozhikode district- 673 001 3. state of kerala represented by the public prosecutor high court of kerala, ernakulam682031 r1 by adv. sri.t.k.babu r2 & r3 by public prosecutor smt.p.maya this criminal misc. case having come up for admission on1010-2014, the court on the same day passed the following: crl.mc.no. 5607 of 2014 () --------------------------- appendix petitioner(s)' exhibits ----------------------------- annexure a1 - true copy of the final report in c.p.220/2014 of the court of the judicial magistrate of first class nadapuram. annexure a2 - true copy of the affidavit sworn to by the1t respondent. respondent(s)' exhibits ------------------------------- /true copy/ p.s to judge p.ubaid, j.~~~~~~~~~~ crl.m.c no.5607 of 2014 ~~~~~~~~~~~ dated this the 10th october, 2014 order the petitioners herein are the three accused in cp no.220 of 2014 of the judicial first class magistrate court, nadapuram. crime in the said case was registered on the complaint of one rafeeq, who is the 1st respondent in this proceeding. the prosecution case is that, these petitioners assaulted the said rafeeq and inflicted injuries on his body with the knowledge that the injuries may cause death, and the alleged incident happened in connection with another incident of cheating made by the de facto complainant as part of an unauthorised money lending business. crime was registered under sections 341, 323, 324, 308 and 420 of indian penal code and also under sections 3 and 17 of the kerala money lenders act. now, the accused have brought this petition under section 482 of the code of criminal procedure to quash the prosecution on the ground that the accused and the de facto complainant have settled the dispute amicably, and continuance of prosecution will crl.m.c no.5607 of 2014 2 not serve any purpose.2. the 1st respondent rafeeq has filed affidavit to the effect that he has settled the whole dispute amicably. it appears that the complainant happened to prefer complaint on some misapprehension. anyway he has no grievance or complaint now. on a perusal of the case records, i find that prosecution does not have any definite material for a prosecution under the kerala money lenders act. so also, i find that section 308 of indian penal code was incorporated in the f.i.r on the basis of some hypothetical statement. a perusal of the wound certificate relating to rafeeq shows that he had not sustained any external injury in the alleged incident.3. in gian singh v. state of punjab [2012 (4) klt108sc ] and in narinder singh & others v. state of punjab and another[ 2014 (2) klj252, the hon'ble supreme court has held that even in cases involving non- compoundable offences, the high court can act under section 482 of cr.p.c and quash the prosecution, if the parties have amicably settled the whole dispute, and crl.m.c no.5607 of 2014 3 continuance of prosecution will not serve any purpose. in this case, i find that continuance of prosecution will be a sheer waste of time, when the parties have really settled the dispute, and when there is absolutely nothing to attract the offence under section 308 of indian penal code or the offence alleged under the kerala money lenders act. i find that the prosecution is liable to be quashed. in the result, this petition is allowed. the prosecution against the petitioners herein in c.p.220/2014 of the judicial first class magistrate court, nadapuram, will stand quashed under section 482 of 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 ma
Judgment:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.UBAID FRIDAY, THE10H DAY OF OCTOBER201418TH ASWINA, 1936 Crl.MC.No. 5607 of 2014 () --------------------------- AGAINST CP2202014 of J.M.F.C., NADAPURAM PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED NO.1 TO3 ----------------------------------------- 1. YOUSAF, S/O.AMMAD AGED49YEARS ARINGATTIL HOUSE, VALAYAM P.O, VADAKARA TALUK.

2. SADIQUE, S/O.YOUSAF, ARINGATTIL HOUSE, VALAYAM P.O VADAKARA TALUK.

3. SAJEER, S/O.YOUSAF ARINGATTIL HOUSE, VALAYAM P.O, VADAKARA TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.SUNNY MATHEW RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT AND STATE: ------------------------------------------------- 1. RAFEEQ S/O.SOOPPY, KAKKUDUKKIL HOUSE, CHERUMOTH VALAYAM P.O, VADAKARA TALUK. 673 001 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE VALAYAM POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT- 673 001 3. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM682031 R1 BY ADV. SRI.T.K.BABU R2 & R3 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.P.MAYA THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON1010-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Crl.MC.No. 5607 of 2014 () --------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ----------------------------- ANNEXURE A1 - TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN C.P.220/2014 OF THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS NADAPURAM. ANNEXURE A2 - TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN TO BY THE1T RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS ------------------------------- /TRUE COPY/ P.S TO JUDGE P.UBAID, J.

~~~~~~~~~~ Crl.M.C No.5607 of 2014 ~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated this the 10th October, 2014 ORDER

The petitioners herein are the three accused in CP No.220 of 2014 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Nadapuram. Crime in the said case was registered on the complaint of one Rafeeq, who is the 1st respondent in this proceeding. The prosecution case is that, these petitioners assaulted the said Rafeeq and inflicted injuries on his body with the knowledge that the injuries may cause death, and the alleged incident happened in connection with another incident of cheating made by the de facto complainant as part of an unauthorised money lending business. Crime was registered under Sections 341, 323, 324, 308 and 420 of Indian Penal Code and also under Sections 3 and 17 of the Kerala Money Lenders Act. Now, the accused have brought this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the prosecution on the ground that the accused and the de facto complainant have settled the dispute amicably, and continuance of prosecution will Crl.M.C No.5607 of 2014 2 not serve any purpose.

2. The 1st respondent Rafeeq has filed affidavit to the effect that he has settled the whole dispute amicably. It appears that the complainant happened to prefer complaint on some misapprehension. Anyway he has no grievance or complaint now. On a perusal of the case records, I find that prosecution does not have any definite material for a prosecution under the Kerala Money Lenders Act. So also, I find that Section 308 of Indian Penal Code was incorporated in the F.I.R on the basis of some hypothetical statement. A perusal of the wound certificate relating to Rafeeq shows that he had not sustained any external injury in the alleged incident.

3. In Gian Singh v. State of Punjab [2012 (4) KLT108SC ] and in Narinder Singh & Others v. State of Punjab and another[ 2014 (2) KLJ252, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that even in cases involving non- compoundable offences, the High Court can act under Section 482 of Cr.P.C and quash the prosecution, if the parties have amicably settled the whole dispute, and Crl.M.C No.5607 of 2014 3 continuance of prosecution will not serve any purpose. In this case, I find that continuance of prosecution will be a sheer waste of time, when the parties have really settled the dispute, and when there is absolutely nothing to attract the offence under Section 308 of Indian Penal Code or the offence alleged under the Kerala Money Lenders Act. I find that the prosecution is liable to be quashed. In the result, this petition is allowed. The prosecution against the petitioners herein in C.P.220/2014 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Nadapuram, will stand quashed under Section 482 of 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 ma