Allowed

Haneefa v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC19 Jun 2013Crl.MC/200/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners, accused in a criminal case arising from a family dispute, sought quashing of the FIR under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The High Court allowed the petition, quashing the FIR and subsequent proceedings, noting the dispute was amicably settled between close relatives and continuation would be an abuse of process.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Miscellaneous Case allowed, quashing Annexure-B F.I.R. in Crime No.1188 of 2012 of Karunagappally Police Station and all subsequent proceedings against petitioners pursuant to the file of

Haneefa Vs State of Kerala — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Kerala HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF JUNE 2013/29TH JYAISHTA 1935

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 200 of 2013

¶6

CRIME NO. 1188/2012 OF KARUNAAGAPALLY POLICE STATION , KOLLAM

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED A1 TO 4:

¶8

1. HANEEFA,AGED 56 YEARS, S/O.MUHAMMED KUNJU, KOICKAL PUTHEN VEEDU, PADA NORTH, KARUNAGAPPALLY THALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT.

¶9

2. NETHAJI, AGED 36 YEARS PALACE OUT HOUSE, PADA NORTH, KARUNAGAPPALLY THALUK KOLLAM DISTRICT.

¶10

3. JAMEELA, AGED 48 YEARS, W/O. HANEEFA, KOICKAL PUTHEN VEEDU, PADA NORTH, KARUNAGAPPALLY THALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT.

¶11

4. DIPALI, W/O.NETHAJI SETTU, AGED 28 YEARS SHINE PALACE OUT HOUSE, PADA NORTH, KARUNAGAPPALLY THALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT.

¶12

BY ADV. SRI.K.V.ANIL KUMAR

¶13

RESPONDENTS/STATE & COMPLAINANT:

¶14

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶15

2. SUENA, D/O.MAJEED, KOICKAL PALACE, PADA-THEKKUM MURI, KARUNAGAPPALLY VILLAGE, KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM DISTRICT FROM CHEENIKKAPPURATHU THADATHIL,

¶16

KARINGACHIRA DESOM, PUTHENCHIRA VILLAGE, MALA, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶17

3. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KARUNAGAPPALLY POLICE STATION, KOLLAM DISTRICT.

¶18

4. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM DISTRICT.

¶19

5. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, KOLLAM.

¶20

R1,R3 TO R5 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. HYMA R2 BY ADV. SRI.P.V.DILEEP

¶21

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19-06-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

Kss

CRMC.NO.200/2013

APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:

¶26

ANNEXURE-A - A TRUE COPY OF FIR IN CRIME NO.664/2012 OF MALA POLICE STATION IN THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶27

ANNEXURE-B - A TRUE COPY OF FIR IN CRIME NO.1188/2012 OF KARUNAGAPPALLY POLICE STATION IN KOLLAM DISTRICT.

¶28

ANNEXURE-C - AFFIDAVIT OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 6-9-2012. ANNEXURE-D - NOTARIZED AFFIDAVIT OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 3-1-2013.

¶29

RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES: N I L

/TRUE COPY/

P.A.TO JUDGE

Kss

V.K.MOHANAN, J.

Crl.M.C.No.200 of 2013

¶35

Dated this the 19^th day of June, 2013

¶36

ORDER

¶37

The above petition is filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (for short 'Cr.P.C.') at the instance of the petitioners, who are accused Nos.1 to 4 in Crime No.1188 of 2012 of Karunagappally Police Station, which is a case instituted upon a statement made by the 2^nd respondent for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 326, 506(2), 307 & 34 of I.P.C. with a prayer to quash Annexure-B F.I.R. in Crime No.1188 of 2012 of Karunagappally Police Station and all subsequent proceedings pursuant on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Karunagappally as the matter is settled out of court.

¶38

The allegation against the petitioners is that, on 11/06/2012 at about 11 a.m. the petitioners/accused attacked the de facto complainant with hands and also gave a blow with a wooden piece causing injury on the foot of the de facto

¶39

Crl.M.C.No.200 of 2013

¶40

:-2-:

¶41

complainant. The reason for the attack is that the de facto complainant saw the illegal connection between the first accused and the 3^rd accused. Now, the case of the petitioners is that the dispute is settled out of court between them who are close relatives.

¶42

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the 2^nd respondent. I have also heard the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶43

The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that, during the pendency of the above crime, the dispute is settled amicably between the parties, which is the subject matter of the above crime. Therefore, the continuation of the proceedings in the above crime is abuse of process of law and proceedings.

¶44

The learned counsel for the 2^nd respondent, who, on the basis of specific instruction received from the respondent, submitted that the above respondent, who is the de facto complainant/victim/injured, does not intend to proceed any

¶45

Crl.M.C.No.200 of 2013

¶46

:-3-:

¶47

further against the petitioners and she has no grievance against them.

¶48

I have carefully considered the above submissions of the respective counsel. I have verified the documents and materials produced along with the above petition including Annexure-C affidavit and Annexure-D Notarised affidavit of the 2^nd respondent. In the given facts and circumstances of the case and especially in the light of the settlement arrived between the parties to the dispute, the learned Public Prosecutor has also no objection in allowing the above petition. 7. Having regard to the facts and circumstances involved in the case, it can be seen that the offences involved in the above case are only under Sections 323, 324, 326, 506(2), 307 & 34 of I.P.C. which are more or less personal in nature and no public interest is involved. It is pertinent to note that though such offences are involved, the real parties to the dispute approached this Court after having amicably settled the matter. From the submission made by the counsel

¶49

Crl.M.C.No.200 of 2013

¶50

:-4-:

¶51

for the 2^nd respondent, it appears to me that the injured/the victim/the de facto complainant has no further grievance against the petitioners/accused in the light of the settlement arrived by them. In this juncture, it is relevant to note the decision of the Honourable Apex Court reported in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab [2012(4) KLT 108(SC)] in which the Supreme Court has held as follows:-

¶52

“57. The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarised thus: the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal court for compounding the offences under S.320 of the Code. Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz;(i) to secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court. In what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or F.I.R. may be exercised where the offender and victim have settled their dispute would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no category can be prescribed..

¶53

It is further held as follows:-

¶54

“......... But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and pre-dominatingly civil flavour stand on different footing

¶55

Crl.M.C.No.200 of 2013

¶56

:-5-:

¶57

for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial,mercandile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry etc. or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. In this category of cases, High Court may quash criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal case would put accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case despite full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim........”

¶58

According to me, in the light of the facts and circumstances involved in the present case and particularly in view of the settlement arrived in the present case, the dictum laid in the above decision is applicable in the present case. Thus, I am of the view that as the parties to the dispute settled the issues amicably, it is the duty of this Court to promote and encourage such settlement, instead of compelling the parties to go on with the dispute. It is pertinent to note that since the matter is settled out of court, in the event of proceeding with

¶59

Crl.M.C.No.200 of 2013

¶60

:-6-:

¶61

the trial, there would not have any fruitful prosecution resulting the conviction of the accused, rather the net result would be sheer waste of judicial time and abuse of process of the court and proceedings. Thus, according to me, following the decisions cited supra, this Criminal M.C. can be allowed granting the relief as sought for.

¶62

In the result, this Crl.M.C. is allowed, quashing Annexure-B F.I.R. in Crime No.1188 of 2012 of Karunagappally Police Station and all subsequent proceedings against the petitioners pursuant on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Karunagappally.

¶63

Sd/- V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE

¶64

skj

¶65

True copy P.A. to Judge

Haneefa v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Haneefa 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

Sheeba Shaji Vs State of Kerala

Muhammed Ali Vs State of Kerala

Muhammed Abdu Rahiman Vs the State of Kerala

Jose T a Vs State of Kerala

Sushil Gaba Vs State of Kerala

Sarath Krishnan Vs State of Kerala