Allowed

Rahmath Shafi v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC8 Sept 2015Crl.MC/5566/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a criminal miscellaneous petition under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of prosecution against three accused in a domestic dispute case. The Court found a genuine amicable settlement, noting the victim's reunion with her husband, and quashed the proceedings to avoid harassment and waste of judicial time.

What did the court decide?

Prosecution in C.C. No. 652/2011 quashed under Section 482 CrPC; petitioners released from prosecution and bail bond discharged.

Rahmath Shafi Vs State of Kerala — Domestic Violence | Kerala HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.UBAID

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2015/17TH BHADRA, 1937

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 5566 of 2015

¶6

AIN CC 652/2011 OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT II (FOREST OFFENCES), MANJERI CRIME NO. 352/2011 OF VAZHEKKAD POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM

¶7

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO.1 TO 3:

¶8

1. RAHMATH SHAFI, AGED 32 YEARS, S/O. MUHAMMED KUTTY, AMBALAPURATH HOUSE, KANNATTIKULAM CHERUVANNUR, KOLATHARA P.O., KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.

¶9

2. FATHIMA SUHARA, AGED 55 YEARS, W/O. MUHAMMED KUTTY, AMBALAPPURATH HOUSE, KANNATTIKULAM, CHERUVANNUR, KOLATHARA P.O, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.

¶10

3. SABITHA BHEEGAM, AGED 30 YEARS, D/O. MUHAMMED KUTTY, AMBALAPPURATH HOUSE, KANNATTIKULAM, CHERUVANNUR, KOLATHARA P.O, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.

¶11

BY ADV. SRI.U.K.DEVIDAS

¶12

RESPONDENTS/STATE & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:

¶13

1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VAZHAKKAD POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM.

¶14

2. NASEENA , AGED 26 YEARS, D/O. ABDULLA, PALLIYALI HOUSE, EDAVANNAPPARA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶15

R2 BY ADV. SMT.P.M.SHAHIDA R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.JUSTIN JACOB

¶16

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08-09-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

Crl.MC.No. 5566 of 2015

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

PETITIONERS' ANNEXURES:

¶20

ANNEXURE A : CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIRST INFORMATION REPORT IN CRIME NO.352/2011 OF VAZHEKKAD POLICE STATION.

¶21

ANNEXURE B : CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO.352/2011 OF VAZHEKKAD POLICE STATION.

¶22

ANNEXURE C : COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DTD.4.4.2015.

¶23

ANNEXURE D : COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN IN BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DTD.4.4.2015.

¶24

RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES:

NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.A TO JUDGE

P.UBAID, J. --------------------------------------Crl.M.C No.5566 of 2015 ---------------------------------------

¶30

Dated this the 8^th day of September, 2015

¶31

O R D E R

¶32

The petitioners herein are the three accused in C.C No.652/2011 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court II, (Forest Offences), Manjeri. They seek orders quashing the prosecution on the ground of amicable settlement of the whole dispute between them and the de facto complainant. Crime in this case was registered under Sections 498(A) and 406 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code on the complaint of one Naseena, who is the second respondent in this proceeding brought under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The victim's affidavit shows that she has reunited with her husband, and now they are leading a very happy matrimony. In such a situation, it is appropriate that the prosecution be quashed. Otherwise, it will cause embarassment to them and may even create problems in matrimony.

¶33

In so many decisions, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that even in cases involving non-compoundable offences, the High Court can quash the prosecution in pending

¶34

Crl.M.C No.5566 of 2015 2

¶35

proceedings, if the parties have really settled the whole dispute amicably out of court, and continuance of the prosecution will not serve any purpose in such a circumstance of amicable settlement. Here, I find a real and genuine case of settlement between the parties. This is not a case involving any public interest or public issue. The parties have come to terms amicably on the intervention of persons acceptable to both sides. In such a situation, continuance of the prosecution will not serve any purpose other than wasting the precious time of the court. No doubt, nobody will support the prosecution in such a situation, if the case goes to trial.

¶36

In the result, this petition is allowed. The prosecution against the petitioners herein in C.C No.652/2011 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court II, (Forest Offences), Manjeri will stand quashed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Accordingly, the petitioners will stand released from prosecution, and the bail bond, if any, executed by them will stand discharged.

¶37

P.UBAID JUDGE

¶38

Rahmath Shafi v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rahmath Shafi 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

P.Babu Vs State of Kerala

Samad Vs State of Kerala

Ananthakrishna Nayak Vs Vijaya.K

Thahira Vs State of Kerala

Jasif M. Vs Muhammed Razal

Jaffer Mandyan Vs the State of Kerala