Kerala High Court
Muhammed Bilal vs State Of Kerala on 5 April, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
TUESDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF APRIL 2022 / 15TH CHAITHRA, 1944
CRL.MC NO. 1680 OF 2020
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CP 21/2019 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF
FIRST CLASS -II,NEDUMANGAD
PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO.1-7:
1 MUHAMMED BILAL
AGED 23 YEARS
S/O SHAJAHAN, A-67,T.C.35/576, SHAHANA MANZIL,
PRIYADARSHINI NAGAR, BANGLADESH COLONY, VALLAKKADAVU,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 009.
2 MUHAMMED SHAFEEQUE
AGED 29 YEARS
S/O BADARUDHEEN, HOUSE NO 63, AIR INDIA NAGAR, NEAR N.S
DIPPO, VALLAKKADAVU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 009.
3 MUHAMMED FAIZAL,
AGED 26 YEARS
S/O SHAMSUDHEEN, KALLUVILAKATHU VEEDU, NEAR KSEB TOWN
WARD, THOLICOD, NEDUMANGAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 547.
4 MUHAMMED ASSLAM
AGED 21 YEARS
S/O SHAJAHAN, A-67,T.C.35/576, SHAHANA MANZIL,
PRIYADARSHINI NAGAR, BANGLADESH COLONY, VALLAKKADAVU,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 009.
5 MUHAMMED YAZIN,
AGED 20 YEARS
S/O SUDHEER, A-67,T.C.35/576, SHAHANA MANZIL,
PRIYADARSHINI NAGAR, BANGLADESH COLONY, VALLAKKADAVU,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 009.
6 ABDUL RAHMAN,
AGED 25 YEARS
S/O SULFICKER, T.C 67/2071, VEDANTHARA, BEHIND KUMARI
MARKET, AMBALATHARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 009.
7 RAHEEZ,
AGED 22 YEARS
S/O SULFICKER, T.C 67/2071, VEDANTHARA, BEHIND KUMARI
MARKET, AMBALATHARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 009.
BY ADV J.G.SYAMNATH
RESPONDENTS/STATE, COMPLAINANT & VICTIM:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH
CRL.MC NO. 1680 OF 2020
-2-
COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031.
2 SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE
VATTIYOORKAVU POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-
695 013.
3 NAJUMUDEEN
AGED 49 YEARS
S/O MEERAN SAHIB, T.C 35/491, SAMEER MANZIL,
VIDHYA GARDENS. NEAR ST. XAVIERS CHURCH,
BANGLADESH COLONY, VALLAKKADAVU,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 009.
4 IMRAN KHAN
AGED 24 YEARS
S/O NUJUMUDEEN , T.C.35/491, SAMEER MANZIL, VIDHYA
GARDENS. NEAR ST. XAVIERS CHURCH, BANGLADESH
COLONY, VALLAKKADAVU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 009.
5 MUHANAS
AGED 21 YEARS
S/O SAKKEER, T.C.38/491, USHAS, AKSHARA VEEDHI
LANE, PETTAH, KADAKAMPALLY VILLAGE,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 024.
BY ADV R.RATHEESH
SRI M P PRASANTH-PP
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 05.04.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:
CRL.MC NO. 1680 OF 2020
-3-
ORDER
This Crl.M.C. has been preferred to quash Annexure A2 Final
Report in C.P.No.21/2019, pending before the Judicial First Class
Magistrate's Court-II, Nedumangad, on the ground of settlement
between the parties.
2. The petitioners are accused 1 to 7. The 3rd respondent is
the de facto complainant and the 4th and 5th respondents are the
injured.
3. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under
Sections 143, 149, 363, 364(A), 365 and 323 of IPC.
4. The respondent Nos. 3, 4 & 5 entered appearance through
counsel. An affidavit sworn in by them are also produced.
5. I have heard Sri. Syamnath J.G., the learned counsel for
the petitioners, Sri. R.Ratheesh, the learned counsel for the
respondent Nos. 3, 4 & 5 and Sri. M.P.Prasanth, the learned Public
Prosecutor.
6. The averments in the petition as well as the affidavits
sworn in by the respondent Nos.3, 4 & 5 would show that the entire
dispute between the parties has been amicably settled and the de facto
CRL.MC NO. 1680 OF 2020
complainant has decided not to proceed with the crime further. The
learned Prosecutor, on instruction, submits that the matter was
enquired into through the investigating officer and a statement of the
de facto complainant was also recorded wherein he reported that the
matter was amicably settled.
7. The Apex Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab
[2012 (4) KLT 108 (SC)], Narinder Singh and Others v. State of
Punjab and Others [(2014) 6 SCC 466] and in State of Madhya
Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan and Others [(2019) 5 SCC 688] has
held that the High Court invoking S.482 of Cr.P.C can quash criminal
proceedings in relation to non compoundable offence where the
parties have settled the matter between themselves notwithstanding
the bar under S.320 of Cr.P.C. if it is warranted in the given facts and
circumstances of the case or to ensure ends of justice or to prevent
abuse of process of any Court.
8. The dispute in the above case is purely personal in nature.
No public interest or harmony will be adversely affected by quashing
the proceedings pursuant to Annexure A2 Final Report. The offences
in question do not fall within the category of offences prohibited for
compounding in terms of the pronouncement of the Apex Court in
CRL.MC NO. 1680 OF 2020
Gian Singh (supra), Narinder Singh (supra) and Laxmi
Narayan (supra).
For the reasons stated above, I am of the view that no purpose
will be served in proceeding with the matter further. Accordingly, the
Crl.M.C. is allowed. Annexure A2 Final Report in C.P.No.21/2019,
pending before Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-II,
Nedumangad, stands hereby quashed.
Sd/-
DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
JUDGE
uu
05.04.2022
CRL.MC NO. 1680 OF 2020
APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 1680/2020
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
ANNEXURE A1 TRUE COPY OF THE FIR NO 181/2019 OF
VATTIYOORKAVU POLICE STATION
ANNEXURE A2 TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CP
21/2019 PENDING BEFORE JUDICIAL FIRST
CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-11 NEDUMANGAD
ANNEXURE A3 COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT EXECUTED BY THE
3RD RESPONDENT
ANNEXURE A4 COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT EXECUTED BY THE
4TH RESPONDENT
ANNEXURE A5 COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT EXECUTED BY THE
5TH RESPONDENT
