High Court of KeralaSingle JudgePetition allowed; proceedings quashed and FIR N...

Bilal Ibnu Ahmed and others v. State of Kerala

Case / Petition Number:CRL.MC NO. 3687 OF 2022
Neutral Citation:,

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.
Judgment Date
2022-06-30
Court Decision / Holding
The CRL.MC 3687 of 2022 is allowed; Annexure-1 FIR in Crime No. 250/2022 and all further proceedings against the petitioners are quashed under Section 482 CrPC.
Final Disposition
Petition allowed; proceedings quashed and FIR No. 250/2022 quashed against petitioners.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • BILAL IBNU AHMED
  • MOHAMMAD SALIH P
  • ABHIN JANARDHANAN
  • VIGNESH R
  • SARIN RAJEEV P
  • ANANDU S NATH
  • ABHIRAM P.K
  • SREERAG ANIL
  • GOURI SANKAR S.O ANIL KUMAR C S
  • MUHAMMAD ASLAM T S
  • JEROME JAMES N
  • HARILAL V
  • SIDHARTH N S
  • ADARSH SATHYAN
  • EMMANUAL ROBIN JOHNKUTTY
  • NIHAL SALAM
  • AVINASH KP

Respondents

  • STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA
  • MOHAMMED JISHAD
  • BAYAN K
  • MOHAMED HAZEEM
  • IHSANUL HAQUE VP
  • DILVASEEM T P
  • ASWIN JOSE
  • FALAHUDEE N M
  • JAFIN MUHAMMED MUJEEB

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • G.RANJU MOHAN
  • • M.SANTHI (K/868/2011)

Counsels for Respondents

  • • PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
  • • ADV.SAREENA.S
  • • ADV. M.P.PRASHANTH SR P P

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a criminal miscellaneous case (CRL.MC No. 3687 of 2022) filed by 17 accused in Crime No. 250/2022 of Sreekaryam Police Station seeking quashing of further proceedings under Section 482 CrPC. The FIR alleges offences under IPC Sections 143, 147, 149, 341 and 323, for an assault on respondents 2 to 9 on 05 March 2022 at about 11 a.m. The petitioners contend that the dispute is private and has been settled; affidavits (Annexures A2–A9) sworn by the injured respondents state they have no subsisting grievance and no objection to quashing. The State, via Public Prosecutor, confirms that the veracity of the settlement was verified by the SHO, and the injured respondents reiterate they have no objection to quashing. The court notes the private nature of the dispute and, given the settlement, that continuing proceedings would not serve any purpose and the chances of a successful prosecution are bleak. Relying on Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Another (2012) 4 KLT 108, the court holds that it can invoke its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC and quashes the FIR and all further proceedings against the petitioners. The order is passed by Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. The matter ends with quashing of proceedings initiated by the FIR.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 143 IPCSection 147 IPCSection 149 IPCSection 341 IPCSection 323 IPCSection 482 CrPC

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners submit that the dispute with the respondents is private and has been amicably settled. The affidavits sworn by the injured respondents (Annexures A2–A9) state they have no subsisting grievance and have no objection to quashing the proceedings. Since the settlement is genuine and the likelihood of conviction is minimal, continuation of proceedings serves no public interest. The petition seeks exercise of Section 482 CrPC to prevent harassment and conserve judicial resources.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents’ counsel and the Public Prosecutor corroborate that the settlement is verified by the SHO and that the injured respondents have expressed no objection to quashing the proceedings. They emphasize the private nature of the dispute but acknowledge that the court may exercise its jurisdiction under Article 482 CrPC to do substantial justice given the lack of ongoing grievance and the settlement between the parties.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Another2012(4) KLT 108PositiveThe court relies on Gian Singh to exercise its inherent power under Section 482 CrPC to quash proceedings where there is a private dispute and a settlement between parties.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Bilal Ibnu Ahmed and others v. State of Kerala and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

# **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A. THURSDAY, THE 30[TH] DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 9TH ASHADHA, 1944 ``` ``` CRL.MC NO. 3687 OF 2022 ``` ``` CRIME NO.250 OF 2022 OF SREEKARYAM POLICE STATION, ``` ## **`THIRUVANANTHAPURAM`** ## **`PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.1-17:`** ``` 1BILAL IBNU AHMED AGED 23 YEARS S.O AHMED KABEER, MADEENA, THAZHATHUVADAKKU, PATTAZHY, PATTAZHY P.O, KERALA – 691522 2MOHAMMAD SALIH P S.O MOIDEEN KUTTY, PANIKOTTIL HOUSE, OZHUR P.O, AYYAYA, VELLACHAL, OZHUR, MALAPPURAM, KERALA, PIN – 676307 3ABHIN JANARDHANAN AGED 21 YEARS S.O JANARDHANAN KM, KELOTH MEETHAL, CHELANNUR, KANNANKARA, KERALA – 673616 4VIGNESH R AGED 20 YEARS S.O SEVANMALLAY NAGARMUDI, MUNNAR, DEVIKULAM, IDUKKI, KERALA – 685612 5SARIN RAJEEV P S.O RAJEEVAN K, RAJEEVAM, KOLACHERIPARAMBA, CHELERI, KANNUR, KERALA – 670604 6ANANDU S NATH AGED 21 YEARS S.O C M REGHUNATHAN, 7/182, RAJI MADHAVAM, NEELIKULAM, K S PURAM, VAVVAKKAVU P.O. - 690528 7ABHIRAM P.K AGED 21 YEARS S.O P.K AJITH KUMAR, KALA NIVAS, POOKKAPURATH THAZHE KUNIYIL HOUSE, VADAKARA BEACH P.O, VADAKARA, KERALA., PIN – 673103 ``` ``` CRL.MC NO. 3687 OF 2022 ``` ``` 2 ``` - `8 SREERAG ANIL S.O ANIL KUMAR MALAYIL, SRUTHI LAYAM, NETHAJI NAGAR, MANIKKUNI, SULTHANBATHERY, WAYANAD, KERALA – 673592` - `9 GOURI SANKAR S.O ANIL KUMAR C S, CHARIVUPARAMBIL, KIDANGANNUR P.O, KIDANGANNUR, PATHANAMTHITTA, KERALA – 689514` - `10 MUHAMMAD ASLAM T S S.O SHAFEEK T K, THACHAPALLI, NETTOOR, ERNAKULAM, KERALA – 682040` - `11 JEROME JAMES N AGED 22 YEARS,S.O JAMES, NEYYAN HOUSE, MUNDUR, ANJUR, THRISSUR, KERALA – 680541` - `12 HARILAL V AGED 22 YEARS S.O MUKUNDAN V, 320/24, VELAPPOYIL HOUSE, NADUVANAD KERALA – 670702` - `13 SIDHARTH N S AGED 21 YEARS S.O SUKUMARAN K V, NITTADUKKAM HOUSE, NEAR MUTHAPPANTHARA, HOSDURG, KASARAGOD.` - `14 ADARSH SATHYAN AGED 20 YEARS S.O SATHYAN, NARINATTU VADAKKATHIL, CLAPPANA P.O, KARUNAGAPPALLY, CLAPPANA, KOLLAM, KERALA – 690525` ``` 15EMMANUAL ROBIN JOHNKUTTY AGED 20 YEARS S.O ROBIN JOHNKUTTY, PEAR COTTAGE, TC 34/1596-1, USC ROAD, KOCHUTHOPE, VALLAKKADAVU P.O, KERALA – 695008 ``` ``` 16NIHAL SALAM AGED 21 YEARS ``` ``` CRL.MC NO. 3687 OF 2022 ``` ``` 3 ``` ``` S.O ABDUL SALAM, EECHIKUNNUMMAL, PANDIKODE, PERAMBRA, MENHANNIAM, KERALA – 673525 ``` ``` 17AVINASH KP S.O RAVEENDRAN, KUNNATHODY PADY (H), NADUVATTAM(PO), NADUVATTAM, THIRUVEGAPPURA, PATTAMBI, PALAKKAD(DT)- 679308 ``` ``` BY ADVS. G.RANJU MOHAN M.SANTHI (K/868/2011) ``` ## **`RESPONDENT/S:`** - `1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN – 682031` - `2 MOHAMMED JISHAD AGED 21 YEARS S/O ASHRAF P, POONGADAN(H), KAKKAD, KAKKAD P.O, TIRURANGADI, MALAPPURAM, KERALA – 676306` - `3 BAYAN K S.O ABOOBACKER K, KUTTASSERI HOUSE, EAST CHATHALLOOR, PERAKAMANNA, CHATHALLUR, MALAPPURAM, KERALA – 579641` - `4 MOHAMED HAZEEM S/O ABDUL GAFOOR, CHAKRATHODI, VATALLOOR P.O, KURUVA, MALAPPURAM, KERALA – 676507` - `5 IHSANUL HAQUE VP S.O SHAJI, BEEVI MAHAL, THANNICHAL, KALLAMPARA, PERUMUGHAM P.O, FEROKE S.O, KOZHIKODE, KERALA – 673631` - `6 DILVASEEM T P AGED 22 YEARS S.O VEERANKUTTY MASTER T.P, THANDUPARA HOUSE, PONNAMKUNNU, EDAVANNA, MALAPPURAM, KERALA – 676541` ``` CRL.MC NO. 3687 OF 2022 ``` ``` 4 ``` ``` 7ASWIN JOSE AGED 21 YEARS S.O JOSE JOSEPH, PALLIYARADIYIL HOUSE, SNDP ROAD, S N PURAM, THAIKKATTUKARA, ALUVA, THAIKATTUKARA, ERNAKULAM, KERALA – 683106 8FALAHUDEEEN M AGED 22 YEARS S.O ABDUL MAJEED M, MANNAYIL HOUSE, CHOLAKKAL, PAYYANAD, MALAPPURAM, KERALA – 676122 9JAFIN MUHAMMED MUJEEB AGED 22 YEARS S.O MUJEEB P.P, PUTHAN PURAKKAL HOUSE, CHEEKKUNNU WEST PO, KAKKATTIL, VIA KOZHIKODE, NADAPURAM, KERALA – 673504 BY ADVS. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ADV.SAREENA.S ADV. M.P.PRASHANTH SR P P ``` ``` THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30.06.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` CRL.MC NO. 3687 OF 2022 ``` ``` 5 ``` ## **`ORDER`** The petitioners are the accused in Crime No.250/2022 of Sreekaryam Police Station which was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 149, 341 and 323 of Indian Penal Code. 2. The allegation against the petitioners is that, on 05.03.2022 at 11 a.m., due to political vendetta, the petitioners have assaulted the respondents 2 to 9. Annexure A1 is the First Information Report and this Crl.M.C. is filed for quashing all further proceedings pursuant thereto. 3. Heard Sri.G.Ranju Mohan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri.M.P. Prasanth, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and Smt.Sareena S., learned counsel appearing for the respondents 2 to 9. 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 injured persons have sworn Annexure A2 to Annexure A9 affidavits ``` CRL.MC NO. 3687 OF 2022 ``` ``` 6 ``` respectively. The aforesaid affidavits indicate that, the matter has been settled and the injured persons have no subsisting grievance against the petitioners herein. They also conveyed that they have no objection in quashing the proceedings against the petitioners herein. The learned counsel for the respondents 2 to 9/injured persons 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 injured persons have reiterated that, they do not have any objection in quashing the proceedings as they have 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** ``` CRL.MC NO. 3687 OF 2022 ``` ``` 7 ``` **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- 1 First Information Report in Crime No.250/2022 of Sreekaryam Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram and all further proceedings pursuant thereto as against the petitioners are hereby quashed. ``` Sd/- ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A. JUDGE ``` scs ``` CRL.MC NO. 3687 OF 2022 ``` ``` 8 ``` ## **`APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 3687/2022`** ## `PETITIONER ANNEXURES` |`Annexure A1`|`TRUE COPY OF FIR IN CRIME NO.250 OF`| |---|---| ||`2022 OF SREEKARYAM POLICE STATION.`| |`Annexure A2`|`THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 2ND`| ||`RESPONDENT, DEFACTO COMPLAINANT IN`| ||`CRIME NO. 250/2022 REGISTERED BY THE`| ||`SREEKARYAM POLICE STATION.`| |`Annexure A3`|`THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 3RD`| ||`RESPONDENT INJURED IN THE ABOVE CRIME.`| |`Annexure A4`|`THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 4TH`| ||`RESPONDENT INJURED IN THE ABOVE CRIME.`| |`Annexure A5`|`THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 5TH`| ||`RESPONDENT INJURED IN THE ABOVE CRIME.`| |`Annexure A6`|`THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 6TH`| ||`RESPONDENT INJURED IN THE ABOVE CRIME.`| |`Annexure A7`|`THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 7TH`| ||`RESPONDENT INJURED IN THE ABOVE CRIME.`| |`Annexure A8`|`THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 8TH`| ||`RESPONDENT INJURED IN THE ABOVE CRIME.`| |`Annexure A9`|`THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 9TH`| ||`RESPONDENT INJURED IN THE ABOVE CRIME.`|