Shakeer @ Kareem & Others v. State of Kerala

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: A.M.Shaffique
Judgment Date: 2012-05-08
Court Decision / Holding: All proceedings against the petitioners in CC No.415 of 2007 arising from Crime No.58 of 2007 are quashed under Section 482 CrPC.
Final Disposition: Quashed

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Shakeer @ Kareem
Subramanian
Unni @ Pramod
Bakker
Muhammed
Kunjappu

Respondents

State of Kerala, rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam - 682031
Aboobacker (de facto complainant)

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Adv. Sri Rajit

Counsels for Respondents

• Public Prosecutor Sri Noushad Thottathil

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a criminal miscellaneous case under Section 482 CrPC filed by the accused for quashing CC No.415/2007 (arising from Crime No.58/2007 of Chavakkad Police Station) before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Chavakkad. The petitioners, six accused (Shakeer @ Kareem, Subramanian, Unni @ Pramod, Bakker, Muhammed and Kunjappu), are charged with offences including 143, 147, 447, 427 and 506(i) read with 149 IPC. The de facto complainant (R2), ABOOBACKER, has filed an affidavit stating that the matter has been settled and he does not intend to prosecute against the petitioners. The court notes that some offences may be non-compoundable, but relying on Supreme Court precedents (Joshi v. State of Haryana; Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab; Nikhil Merchant v. CBI; Manoj Sharma v. State), the power under Section 482 CrPC can be exercised to quash under the right circumstances. In light of the settlement and lack of prosecutorial intent by the de facto complainant, continuing the prosecution would cause unnecessary hardship. Consequently, the court quashes all proceedings against the petitioners in CC No.415/2007 before the JFCM, Chavakkad. The order reflects the evolving scope of 482 CrPC in balancing public interest with private settlement, issued by Justice A.M. Shaffique (Single Judge).

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 482 of CrPCSections 143, 147, 447, 427, 506(i) read with Section 149 IPC

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners submitted that the matter has been settled and the de facto complainant does not intend to prosecute; relying on Supreme Court decisions (Joshi v. Haryana; Madan Mohan Abbot; Nikhil Merchant; Manoj Sharma), quashing is warranted under Section 482 CrPC given the circumstances.

Contentions of Respondents

Not explicitly detailed in the document; the court, however, relies on the settled law and the de facto complainant’s lack of prosecutorial intent to justify quashing.

Cited Precedents (4)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Joshi v. State of Haryana	2003(2) KLT 1062(SC)	Positive	Court uses principle from Joshi to support quashing where there is a settlement and lack of prosecution.
Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab	AIR 2008 (SC) 1969	Positive	Court relies on Abbot to permit quashing under specified circumstances.
Nikhil Merchant v. CBI	2008(3) KLT 769	Positive	Court cites Merchant to justify quashing when settlement exists and prosecution continuation is unwarranted.
Manoj Sharma v. State	2008 (4) KLT 417	Positive	Court cites Manoj Sharma as supporting the quashing under similar circumstances.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE** ## **TUESDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF MAY 2012/18TH VAISAKHA 1934** ## **Crl.MC.No. 1537 of 2012** **---------------------------------[CC.NO.415/2007 OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT,CHAVAKKAD, CRIME NO.58/2007 OF CHAVAKKAD POLICE STATION]** **..........** **PETITIONERS/ACCUSED: ------------------------------------** **1. SHAKEER @ KAREEM, S/O.ABU, AGED 38 YEARS, KARIKAYIL HOUSE, ALUMPADI, MUTHUVATOOR, GURUVAYOOR VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT.** **2. SUBRAMANIAN, S/O.SANKURU, VALAVEETTIL, ALUMPADI, GURUVAYOOR VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT.** **3. UNNI @ PRAMOD, S/O.PRABAKARAN, VADAKKATH HOUSE, MUTHUVATOOR DESOM, GURUVAYOOR VILLAGE, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT.** **4. BAKKER, S/O.BAPU, PANIKKAVEETTIL HOUSE, MUTTUVATOOR DESOM, GURUVAYOOR VILLAGE, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT.** **5. MUHAMMED, S/O.ABU, NURUKKAPARAMBIL HOUSE, MUTTUVATOOR DESOM, GURUVAYOOR VILLAGE, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT.** **6. KUNJAPPU, S/O.SANKURU, VALAVEETTIL, ALUMPADI, GURUVAYOOR VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT.** ## **BY ADV. SRI.RAJIT.** ## **COMPLAINANTS/STATE/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:** **-------------------------------------------------------------------------** **1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 682 031.** **CRL.M.C. NO.1537/2012:** ## **2. ABOOBACKER, AGED 71 YEARS,** **S/O.MUHAMMED, THERUVATH HOUSE, MUTHUVATOOR DESOM, GURUVAYOOR AMSOM, THRISSUR DISTRICT.** ## **R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. NOUSHAD THOTTATHIL.** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08-05-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **CRL.M.C. NO.1537/2012:** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONERS' ANNEXURES:** **ANNEXURE A: COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT FILED BY THE CHAVAKKAD POLICE.** **ANNEXURE B: COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT EVIDENCING THE FACT SWORN TO BY THE R.2.** ## **RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES: NIL.** **//TRUE COPY//** **P.A. TO JUDGE.** **Prv.** ## **A.M.SHAFFIQUE, J * * * * * * * * * * * * *** Crl.M.C.No. 1537 of 2012 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 8[th] day of May 2012 ## **O R D E R** This petition is filed by the Accused under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing all proceedings against the petitioners in C.C.No.415 of 2007 pending before the JFCM Court- Chavakkad arising from Crime No.58 of 2007 of Chavakkad Police Station. It is alleged that the petitioners were involved in commission of offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 447, 427, 506(i) read with section 149 of I.P.C. Annexure A is the charge sheet. 2. The de-facto complainant/2[nd] respondent has filed an affidavit as Annexure B stating that the matter has been settled between the parties and he does not intend to prosecute the case against the petitioners. 3. Though certain offences are not compoundable, in view of the judgments of the Supreme Court in **Joshi v. State of** **Haryana [2003(2)KLT 1062(SC)]Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab [AIR 2008 (S.C.) 1969], Nikhil Merchant v. C.B.I [2008(3) KLT 769]** and **Manoj Sharma v. State [2008** Crl.M.C.No.1537/2012 2 **(4) KLT 417]** , the prosecution against the Petitioners can be quashed under certain circumstances. 4. As matters stand settled as is evident from the affidavit and especially in view of the fact that the de facto complainant does not intend to proceed with the case, there is no point in prosecuting the case any further and it will lead to unnecessary hardship to the de facto complainant. Hence the principles adopted in the above judgments can be applied to the facts of this case also. 5. In the above circumstances, all proceedings against the petitioners/accused in C.C.No.415 of 2007 pending before the JFCM Court- Chavakkad arising from Crime No.58 of 2007 of Chavakkad Police Station are quashed. Crl.M.C is disposed of as above. Sd/- **(A.M.SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE)** jsr Crl.M.C.No.1537/2012 3 Crl.M.C.No.1537/2012 4 Crl.M.C.No.1537/2012 5 ## **THOMAS.P.JOSEPH,J.** Crl.M.C.No. of 200 ORDER 19/01/2011