High Court Kerala High Court

Ummer vs Ibrahim on 30 September, 2009

Kerala High Court
Ummer vs Ibrahim on 30 September, 2009
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl.MC.No. 3051 of 2009()


1. UMMER, KAREEPPAKULAM HOUSE,
                      ...  Petitioner
2. BIJU, S/O.VARGHESE,
3. LAJU, S/O.SIVARAMAN,
4. RAVI, S/O.NARAYANAN,
5. SASI, S/O.PARAMESWARAN,
6. VIJEESH @ KUNGHAYI, S/O.GOPI,

                        Vs



1. IBRAHIM, S/O.ABOOBACKER,
                       ...       Respondent

2. RAZAK, S/O.ABOOBACKER,

3. STATE OF KERALA,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.P.SANTHOSH  (PODUVAL)

                For Respondent  :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR

 Dated :30/09/2009

 O R D E R
              M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J.
           ===========================
            CRL.M.C.No.3051       OF 2009
           ===========================

    Dated this the 30th day of September,2009

                        ORDER

Petitioners are the accused in Crime 494/2009 of

Mannuthy Police Station registered for the offences

under sections 143,147,148,452,323,324,506(ii) 294(b)

read with section 149 of Indian Penal Code registered

under Annexure A F.I.R. The case was registered after

recording the First Information Statement of second

respondent the de facto complainant who is the injured

in the case. As per the First Information Statement

the accused in furtherance of their common object

formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and on

12.9.2009 at about 8 a.m trespassed into the shop room

belonging to the second respondent, the brother of the

first respondent and intimidated, threatened and caused

hurt to the first respondent and also damaged the

articles and glass of the hotel causing a loss of

Rs.3000/- and thereby committed the offence. This

petition is filed under section 482 of Code of Criminal

Procedure to quash Annexure A F.I.R as well as the

proceedings initiated thereunder contending that the

Crl.M.C.3051/2009 2

entire disputes with respondents 1 and 2 were amicably

settled.

2. Respondents 1 and 2 appeared through a counsel.

They also filed separate affidavits stating that the entire

disputes with the petitioners were amicably settled and

they have no objection to quash the proceedings.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners ,

respondents 1 and 2 and learned Public Prosecutor were

heard.

4. Annexure-A F.I.R with the First Information

Statement establish that the offence alleged against the

petitioners are purely personal in nature as against

respondents 1 and 2, the person to whom hurt was caused and

the person whose hotel was damaged. The affidavits filed

by respondents 1 and 2 establish that there was an amicable

settlement of all the disputes between the parties. In

such circumstances, as held by the Apex Court in Madan

Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab (2008(3) KLT 19) it is not

in the interest of justice to continue the prosecution.

Interest of justice warrants to quash the proceedings.

Petition is allowed. Crime No.494/2009 of Mannuthy

Police Station is quashed.

M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR
JUDGE
tpl/-

Crl.M.C.3051/2009    3

M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J.




     ---------------------
      W.P.(C).NO. /06
     ---------------------


         JUDGMENT




     SEPTEMBER,2006