Kerala High Court
Liyakathali vs State Of Kerala on 15 November, 2024
Author: Bechu Kurian Thomas
Bench: Bechu Kurian Thomas
CRL.MC NO. 9110 OF 2024
1
2024:KER:86380
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
FRIDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2024 / 24TH KARTHIKA, 1946
CRL.MC NO. 9110 OF 2024
CRIME NO.200/2017 OF THENHIPALAM POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN CC NO.927 OF 2018 OF
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, PARAPPANANGADI
.......................................
PETITIONER/ACCUSED 1 TO 7 :
1 LIYAKATHALI, AGED 58 YEARS
S/O. HAIDAR CHEDAKKUTH (H),
PALLIKKAL P.O,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT- 673 634.
2 RASHEED, AGED 42 YEARS
S/O. KOYAKUTTY THAZHETHANIYANGATT (H),
PALLIKKAL, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT - 673 634.
3 ABDUL GAFOOR K, AGED 59 YEARS
DEVANKULANGARA (H), PALLIKKAL P.O,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 673 634.
4 ASHRAF T., AGED 35 YEARS
S/O. SAIDALAVI ALOOR (H), PALLIKKAL,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 673 634.
5 ASHRAF M., AGED 42 YEARS
S/O. ASSAIN MUNDAKKAYIL (H), PALLIKKAL,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 673 634.
6 ALI ASKAR, AGED 37 YEARS
S/O. ASSAIN MUNDAKKAYIL (H), PALLIKKAL,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 673 634.
7 C.K ABBAS, AGED 42 YEARS
S/O. MOIDEEN, POTHALAKKALHOUSE,
PALLIKKAL P.O, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT - 673 634.
BY ADV NAJAH EBRAHIM V.P.
CRL.MC NO. 9110 OF 2024
2
2024:KER:86380
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT/DE FACTO COMPLAINANT :
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682 031.
2 K. ABDU RAHMAN, AGED 57 YEARS
S/O. SAIDALAVI PALAMKULANGARA(H),
PALLIKKAL BAZAR,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 673 634.
SMT. SREEJA V (PP)
BY ADV MUHAMMED AFRIN NUHMAN T.T.
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
15.11.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
CRL.MC NO. 9110 OF 2024
3
2024:KER:86380
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J
......................................................
Crl.M.C.No.9110 of 2024
...................................................
Dated this the 15th day of November, 2024
ORDER
Petitioners have invoked the jurisdiction under Section 528 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023; to quash all proceedings
against them.
2. Petitioners are accused Nos.1 to 7 in C.C.No.927/2018 on the files of the
Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Parappanangadi, arising out of
Crime No.200/2017 of Thenhipalam Police Station, registered for the
offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, and 324 r/w
Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The second respondent is
the de facto complainant.
3. According to the prosecution, accused had on 25.06.2017 formed
themselves into an unlawful assembly and assaulted the de facto
complainant 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
CRL.MC NO. 9110 OF 2024
2024:KER:86380
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. 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].
7. I have perused Annexure-C affidavit filed by the second respondent. The
learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that upon verification, it is
understood that the affidavit is genuine, and the de facto 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.
8. Though the learned Public Prosecutor pointed out that the first petitioner
is involved in four other crimes, second petitioner is involved in five
CRL.MC NO. 9110 OF 2024
2024:KER:86380
other crimes and petitioners 3 and 6 in two other crimes apart from
petitioners 4 and 7 in one other crime, considering the nature of the
settlement arrived at between the parties, and the nature of allegations
in the present crime, I am of the view that no purpose would be
achieved by continuing the prosecution.
Accordingly, all proceedings against the petitioners in C.C.No.927/2018
on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Parappanangadi,
are quashed.
This Crl.M.C is allowed as above.
sd/-
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
JUDGE
AMV/19/11/2024
CRL.MC NO. 9110 OF 2024
2024:KER:86380
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
ANNEXURE A CERTIFIED COPY OF THAT FINAL REPORT IN CC.
NO: 927/2018 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS
MAGISTRATE COURT, PARAPPANANGADI
ANNEXURE B THE MEMORANDUM OF EVIDENCE IN CRIME NO:
200/2017OF THENHIPALAM POLICE STATION,
MALAPPURAM (DIST)U/SECTIONS 143, 147, 148,
323, 324 R/W 149 OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE
ANNEXURE C AN AFFIDAVIT DTD:-13/06/2024 SWORN BY 2ND
RESPONDENT
