Kerala High Court
Faisal B.M @ B.M.Pallikunhi vs Mohammed K.S on 1 June, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.
WEDNESDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 11TH JYAISHTA, 1944
CRL.MC NO. 3026 OF 2022
PETITIONER/S:
1 FAISAL B.M @ B.M.PALLIKUNHI
AGED 33 YEARS
SON OF ABDUL RAHIMAN,
RESIDING AT BADAKKAL HOUSE,
MANJATHADKA, SHIRIBAGILU POST,
KASARAGOD DISTRICT., PIN - 671124
2 ABDUL NAZEER K
AGED 34 YEARS
SON OF ABOOBACKER,
RESIDING AT JASEERA MANZIL,
ARIKKADY, BAMBRANA, BAMBRANA VILLAGE,
KASARAGOD DISTRICT., PIN - 671321
3 MUHAMMED NOUSHAD S.M
AGED 29 YEARS
SON OF SAYYID M JAMAL,
RESIDING AT RAJEEV NAGAR,
SEETHAMGOLI, EDANAD VILLAGE,
KASARAGOD DISTRICT., PIN - 671321
4 MUHAMMED FAISAL @ FAISAL
AGED 36 YEARS
SON OF BADUVAN KUNHI,
RESIDING AT ARIKADY COLONY, BAMBRANA,
BAMBRANA VILLAGE,
NOW RESIDING AT RAJEEV GANDHI COLONY,
SEETHAMGOLI, EDANAD VILLAGE,
KASARAGOD DISTRICT., PIN - 671321
BY ADVS.
T.MADHU
C.R.SARADAMANI
RESPONDENT/S:
1 MOHAMMED K.S
AGED 54 YEARS
SON OF SOOPI, RESIDING AT PANJIKAL HOUSE,
VIDYAGIRI, BADIADKA, P.O.PERDALA, KASARAGOD DISTRICT
- 671 551, PIN - 671551
2 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031
Crl. M.C. No. 3026 of 2022 -2-
3 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER
BADIADKA POLICE STATION,
KASARAGOD DISTRICT., PIN - 671551
BY ADV THOMAS JOHN P.
OTHER PRESENT:
ADV VIPIN NARAYAN -SR. PP
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 01.06.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:
Crl. M.C. No. 3026 of 2022 -3-
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 1st day of June, 2022
The petitioners are accused Nos. 1 to 4 in Crime No. 186 of
2012 of Badiadukka Police Station which is now pending as C. C. No.
457 of 2022 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court - II,
Kasaragod. The aforesaid crime was registered on the basis of the
information submitted by the 1st respondent alleging offences
punishable under Sections 457, 380 and 461 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. The prosecution case is that on 11.04.2012 at about 04:00
a.m., accused Nos. 1 to 4 committed trespass into the residential
building owned by the sister of the de facto complainant where the de
facto complainant and his family are residing, committed theft of gold
ornaments weighing 1.5 sovereigns and an amount of Rs. 18,000/-. It
is also alleged that the accused persons also committed theft of a
Maruti Alto car bearing registration No. KL-14-J-2595 which was
parked in the car porch of the building.
3. Annexure A1 is the FIR and Annexure A2 is the final report
submitted in this case. This Crl. M. C. is filed for quashing all further
proceedings pursuant to Annexure A2 final report.
4. Heard Sri. T. Madhu, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner, Sri. Thomas John P., learned counsel appearing for the 1 st
respondent and Sri. Vipin Narayanan, learned Public Prosecutor for
respondent Nos. 2 and 3.
5. The learned Public Prosecutor points out that as per the
statement recorded by the Station House Officer concerned, the 1 st
respondent asserted that the settlement is only in respect of the 1 st and
2nd petitioners alone and he is not intending to settle the matter in
respect of the allegations against the 3rd and 4th petitioners.
6. In such circumstances, the prayer sought for by the petitioner
can be considered only in respect of the prosecution as against
petitioner Nos. 1 and 2.
7. The prayer for quashing the proceedings is sought mainly for
the reason that the dispute between the parties has been settled and to
substantiate the same, Annexure A3 affidavit sworn by respondent No.
1 is produced. The fact of settlement is acknowledged in the aforesaid
affidavit and it is also specifically stated that the 1 st respondent has no
subsisting grievances against the petitioners herein. The 1 st respondent
also clearly expressed his no objection in quashing the proceedings
against the petitioners. However, as mentioned above, the 1st
respondent confirmed the settlement only in respect of prosecution
against 1st and 2nd petitioners.
8. On going through the nature of allegations as contained in
Annexure A2 final report, it can be seen that the dispute is basically
private in nature. Considering the settlement arrived at between the
parties, the chances of a successful prosecution are very bleak and
hence no fruitful purpose would be served if the proceedings is
allowed to continue against the 1st and 2nd petitioners. 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 Cr.P.C. can be invoked.
Accordingly this Crl.M.C. is allowed. All further proceedings in
C. C. No. 457 of 2022 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate
Court - II, Kasaragod pursuant to Crime No. 186 of 2012 of
Badiadukka Police Station as against petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 are
hereby quashed. Prosecution against the other accused can be
continued.
Sd/-
ZIYAD RAHMAN A. A.
JUDGE
Eb
///TRUE COPY///
P. A. TO JUDGE
APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 3026/2022
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A1 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR DATED
11/4/2012 IN CRIME NO.186/2012 OF
BADIADKA POLICE STATION.
Annexure A2 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT
DATED 31/10/2016 IN CRIME NO.186/2012
OF BADIADKA POLICE STATION, KASARAGOD
DISTRICT.
Annexure A3 THE AFFIDAVIT DATED 22/3/2022 SWORN IN
BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT
