Quashed

Najeeb v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC3 Oct 2012Crl.MC/1161/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala, in a matrimonial dispute regarding Section 498-A IPC charges, quashed criminal proceedings after the parties settled and the wife remarried. Relying on the ends of justice, the court held that continuing prosecution would only cause emotional distress to a new family.

What did the court decide?

Criminal proceedings against petitioners in C.C.No.1262 of 2010 quashed invoking inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC.

Najeeb Vs State of Kerala — Matrimonial and Divorce | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF OCTOBER 2012/11TH ASWINA 1934`

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 1161 of 2012 ()

¶6

(C.C.1262/2010 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, KUNNAMKULAM)

¶7

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 TO 4:

¶8

1. NAJEEB, AGED 25 YEARS, S/O.MUHAMMED MASTER, CHEENIKKAPARAMBIL AYAMUKKU DESOM, CHIRANELLUR VIILAGE, THALAPPILLY TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶9

2. MUHAMMED, AGED 53 YEARS,S/O.MOIDEENKUTTY,CHEENIKKAPARAMBIL, AYAMUKKU DESOM, CHIRANELLUR VILLAGE, THALAPPILLY TALUK THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶10

3. SALMA, AGED 48 YEARS , W/O.MUHAMMED, CHEENIKKARAPMBIL HOUSE, AYAMUKKU DESOM, CHIRANELLUR VILLAGE, THALAPPILLY TALUK THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶11

4. NAJMA ASHARAF, AGED 26 YEARS, W/O.ASHRAF, KANDATHUVALAPPIL HOUSE, VETTIKADAVU DESOM, PORKULAM VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶12

BY ADVS.SRI.P.SANJAY SMT.A.PARVATHI MENON SRI.GLEN ANTONY SMT.M.VANAJA

¶13

RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE:

¶14

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY S.I OF POLICE KUNNAMKULAM, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶15

2. SHABNA, D/O.SALIM, NADATHURAYIL HOUSE, KANJIRAKODE DESOM KUMARANELLUR VILLAGE, THALAPPILLY TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. PIN 680 682.

¶16

R1 BY BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.R.RANJITH R2 BY ADV. SMT. SHEEBA FAISAL

¶17

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03-10-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

¶19

Crl.MC.No. 1161 of 2012 () --------------------------

¶20

APPENDIX

¶21

---------

¶22

PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS

¶23

------------------------

¶24

ANNEXURE A1.TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CC NO.1262/2010 OF THE JUDICAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, KUNNAMKULAM.

¶25

ANNEXURE A2. ORIGINAL COPY OF THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT DATED 15.11.2012 EXECUTED BETWEEN IST PETITIONERS AND THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶26

ANNEXURE A3. ORIGINAL COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶27

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS :

¶28

ANNEXURE R2(A). C0PY OF THE RECEIPT EVIDENCING THE 2ND RESPONDENT RECEIVING THE AMOUNT

/ TRUE COPY /

P.A. TO JUDGE

S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J.

¶33

-----------------------------------------------

¶34

Crl.M.C.No.1161 of 2012

¶35

----------------------------------------------Dated this the 3^rd day of October, 2012

¶36

O R D E R

¶37

Petitioners are the accused in a case pending, numbered as C.C.No.1262 of 2012 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the First ClassI, Kunnamangalam. They are being prosecuted for the offence punishable under Section 498-A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, on a report filed in a crime registered on the complaint of 2^nd respondent imputing matrimonial cruelty and harassment demanding dowry against her by the husband, his in-laws and close relatives. 1^st petitioner is the husband of the 2^nd respondent. Pending the criminal case, parties have reached a settlement by which dissolution of

¶38

Crl.M.C.No.1161 of 2012

¶39

:: 2 ::

¶40

the marriage of the 1^st petitioner and the 2^nd respondent has been brought into effect settling all claims, is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners. Annexure A2 has been produced as evidence regarding the settlement effected by the spouses to have termination of their matrimonial relationship. Submissions made as above by the learned counsel for the petitioners are endorsed by the learned counsel for the 2^nd respondent, who submits that, that respondent/the de facto complainant is no longer interested in prosecuting her husband and his relatives.

¶41

Learned counsel for the petitioners and also the counsel appearing for the 2^nd respondent, both submit that after termination of the marriage, the 2^nd respondent has married again and in that relationship she has given birth to a

¶42

Crl.M.C.No.1161 of 2012

¶43

:: 3 ::

¶44

child as well. In such circumstances where settlement has already been effected and she is now in a new matrimonial home compelling her to appear before the court to prosecute the case launched against her previous husband and his relatives is likely to rupture and damage her present peaceful life with the new husband. Further more, since the offence imputed against the petitioners has arisen from the matrimonial disputes of the 1^st petitioner and the 2^nd respondent, it could also be considered as personal and not affecting the public at large. In the light of the settlement effected by the parties, even if the prosecution is continued, there is remote chance for conviction against any of the accused and at best, such prosecution may only result in wastage of time of the court.

¶45

The offence imputed against the

¶46

Crl.M.C.No.1161 of 2012

¶47

:: 4 ::

¶48

petitioners is non-compoundable. Still, having regard to the facts and circumstances and taking note of the decision of the Apex Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab {2012 (4) KLT 108 (SC)}, I find, the ends of justice demand quashing of the criminal proceedings against the petitioners/ accused in the above case.

¶49

Criminal proceedings against the petitioners/accused in C.C.No.1262 of 2012 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the First ClassI, Kunnamangalam are quashed invoking the

¶50

inherent powers of this court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶51

Crl.M.C is disposed of as above.

¶52

Sd/- (S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN) JUDGE

¶53

sk/-

¶54

//true copy//

Najeeb v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Najeeb v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Surajkumar Vs State of Kerala

Vidya Vs Geethabhai

M.K.Sukumar @ Suku Menon Vs Yasir

P.M.Immanuel Vs State of Kerala

Jincy Baby Thomas Vs Varghese Binu Thomas

Sharabudeen Vs State of Kerala