Allowed

Hariprasad K @ Hareesh v. Nazima Sheikh

Kerala HC19 Sept 2014Crl.MC/5100/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court exercised its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings instituted for offences under IPC Sections 341, 323, and 354 read with Section 34. The court allowed the petition after verifying that the offences were personal in nature and the matter had been amicably settled between the parties.

What did the court decide?

Annexure-I final report and all further proceedings in the Sessions Court case were quashed.

Hariprasad K @ Hareesh Vs Nazima Sheikh — Quashing and FIR | Kerala HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2014/28TH BHADRA, 1936

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 5100 of 2014 ()

¶6

IN SC 475/2014 of SESSIONS COURT,KASARAGOD CRIME NO. 512/2013 OF KUMBLA POLICE STATION , KASARGOD

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED 1 TO3:

¶8

HARIPRASAD K @ HAREESH, AGED 29 YEARS

¶9

S/O.RAMA SHETTY, KUBANOOR HOUSE, BEKUR P.O.

¶10

ICHILAMPADY VILLAGE, MANJESHWAR TALUK, KASARAGOD.

¶11

SOORAJ J.K @ SOORI, AGED 20 YEARS

¶12

S/O.JAYARAMA SHETTY, DATHAPRAKASH HOUSE

¶13

HEROOR VILLAGE AND POST, MANJESHWAR TALUK, KASARAGOD.

¶14

SANDEEP SHETTY, AGED 26 YEARS

¶15

S/O.ITHAPPA SHETTY, KANAKAVEL HOUSE, HEROOR P.O.

¶16

MANJESHWAR TALUK, KASARAGOD.

¶17

BY ADV. SRI.CIBI THOMAS

¶18

RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT/STATE:

¶19

NAZIMA SHEIKH, AGED 18 YEARS D/ONAZEER AHAMMED SAHIKH, KUNTANGARADKA, CHEVAR KAYYAR P.O., MANJESHWAR TALUK, KASARAGOD - 671 123.

¶20

SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE KUMBLA POLICE STATION, KASARAGOD - 671 121.

¶21

STATE OF KERALA REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM - 682 031.

¶22

R1 BY ADV. SRI.K.PRAVEEN KUMAR BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.R.REMA

¶23

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19-09-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶24

Crl.MC.No. 5100 of 2014 ()

¶25

APPENDIX

¶26

PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES

¶27

ANNEXURE I : COPY OFTHE FINAL REPORT IN SC 475/14 OF SESSIONS JUDGE, KASARAGOD.

¶28

ANNEXURE II: TRUE COPY OFTHE AFFIDAVIT OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DT. 29.8.14.

¶29

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:

NIL.

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE.

dlk

V.K.MOHANAN, J

===========================

¶36

Crl.M.C No.5100 of 2014

¶37

============================

¶38

Dated this the 19^th day of September, 2014

¶39

ORDER

¶40

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 3 in S.C.No.475/2014 of the Sessions Court, Kasaragod, which is a case instituted upon the police report in Crime No. 512/2013 of Kumbla Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323 and 354 r/w Section 34 of I.P.C. with a prayer to quash Annexure I final report and all further proceedings in S.C No.475/2014 of Sessions Court, Kasaragod as the matter is settled out of court.

¶41

The allegation in the above case is that on 19.08.2013 at

¶42

about 3:30 p.m while the de facto complainant was travelling in a bike driven by her uncle, the petitioners wrongfully restrained her and attacked her and the petitioners have attempted to outrage her modesty and thereby committed the aforesaid offences and now, the case of the petitioners is that the matter is settled out of court.

¶43

Crl.M.C No.5100 of 2014

¶44

¶45

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the 1^st

¶46

respondent. I have also heard the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶47

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

¶48

The learned counsel for the 1^st respondent, who on the basis of specific instruction received from the respondent, submitted that the above respondent, who is the de facto complainant does not intend to proceed any further against the petitioners and she has no grievance against them.

¶49

I have carefully considered the above submissions of the respective counsel. I have verified the documents and materials produced along with the above petition. 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.

¶50

Having regard to the facts and circumstances involved in the case, it can be seen that the offences involved in the above case are under Sections 341, 323 and 354 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, which are more or less

¶51

Crl.M.C No.5100 of 2014

¶52

¶53

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 for the 1^st respondent, it appears to me that 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 case, the Supreme Court has held as follows:-

¶54

“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..

¶55

It is further held as follows:-

¶56

“...... ... But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and predominatingly civil flavour stand on different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial,mercantile, 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

¶57

Crl.M.C No.5100 of 2014

¶58

¶59

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........”

¶60

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 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.

¶61

In the result, this Crl.M.C. is allowed, quashing Annexure -I final report and all further proceedings pending against the petitioners in S.C.No. 475/2014 of the Sessions Court, Kasaragod in Crime No.512/2013 of Kumbla Police Station.

¶62

Sd/- V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE

¶63

vdv

¶64

//true copy// P.A to Judge

Hariprasad K @ Hareesh v. Nazima Sheikh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hariprasad K @ Hareesh v. Nazima Sheikh

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

Mrs.Ashalatha.Y.K Vs State of Kerala

Suprabashg C.G Vs State of Kerala

Sameer Vs State of Kerala

Jancy Benny Vs State of Kerala

Christin P Mathai Vs State of Kerala

Arun.a.S @ Subash Vs State of Kerala