Allowed

Sahar K.K. v. Thasleena

Kerala HC11 Jan 2016Crl.MC/150/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed a petition to quash an FIR and related proceedings under IPC Sections 323, 498(A), and 406. Finding a genuine private settlement between the accused and complainant, the court held that continuing the trial served no purpose and would waste judicial time, thus quashing it under Section 482 CrPC.

What did the court decide?

The FIR and all further proceedings in Crime No.1154 of 2015 registered at Vatakara Police Station were quashed.

Sahar K.K. Vs Thasleena — Quashing and FIR | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.UBAID

¶4

MONDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF JANUARY 2016/21ST POUSHA, 1937

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 150 of 2016 ()

¶6

CRIME NO. 1154/2015 OF VATAGARA POLICE STATION , KOZHIKODE

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED:

¶8

SAHAR K.K. AGED 27 YEARS S/O.MOOSA, SALMA MANZIL, RANDAM MILE MAYYANNOOR P.O., VATAKARA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.C.KHALID

¶10

SMT.K.REEHA KHADER

¶11

RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT/STATE:

¶12

THASLEENA P.P.

¶13

D/O.HAASHIM K.V.M., THASLEENAS, CHOLAMVAYAL NUT STREET P.O., VATAKARA-673001.

¶14

SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE PAYYOLI POLICE STATION, THROUGH STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶15

HIGH COURT OF KERALA, COCHIN-682031.

¶16

R1 BY ADV. SRI.JEEVAN MATHEW MANAYANI

¶17

R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.SHEEBA M.T.

¶18

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11-01-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

Crl.MC.No. 150 of 2016 ()

¶20

APPENDIX

¶21

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶22

ANNEXURE-1: THE COPY OF THE FIR 1154/2015 OF VATAKARA POLICE STATION DATED 06.11.2015.

¶23

ANNEXURE-2: THE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT DATED 22.12.2015.

¶24

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS

/TRUE COPY/

P.S TO JUDGE

P.UBAID, J.

~~~~~~~~~~

Crl.M.C No.150 of 2016 ~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated this the 11^th January, 2016

¶30

O R D E R

¶31

The petitioner herein seeks orders quashing the F.I.R and further proceedings in Crime No.1154 of 2015 of the Vatakara Police Station, Kozhikode registered under Sections 323, 498(A) and 406 of Indian Penal Code on the complaint of one Thasleena. Orders are sought on the ground of amicabe settlement of the whole dispute between the accused, and the de facto complainant out of court. The de facto complainant is the 1^st respondent in this proceeding brought under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. She has filed affidavit to the effect that she has settled the whole dispute with the accused, and she has no grievance or complaint now.

¶32

The victim's affidavit shows that the whole dispute stands resolved forever. It is submitted that the parties have parted ways in terms of the settlement arrived at and the claims of the victim also stand settled. In such a situation, it is appropriate that the pending prosecution be

¶33

Crl.M.C No.150 of 2016

¶34

¶35

quashed.

¶36

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; be it at the crime stage, or at the trial stage, or even at the appellate or revision stage; if the parties have really settled the whole dispute, or if continuance of prosecution will not serve any purpose. Here, I find a real case of settlement between the parties, and I also find that continuance of prosecution in such a situation will not serve any purpose other than wasting the precious time of the court, when the case ultimately comes before the court.

¶37

In the result, this petition is allowed. The F.I.R and further proceedings in crime No.1154 of 2015 of Vatakara Police Station will stand quashed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶38

Sd/- P.UBAID JUDGE

/True copy/

P.S to Judge

Crl.M.C No.150 of 2016

P.UBAID JUDGE

The petitioner/petitioners is/are the sole accused accused No. in ...............C.C No...............of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court..../Court of Session,.............He/They seeks/seek orders quashing the prosecution on the ground

¶47

Crl.M.C No.150 of 2016

¶48

¶49

of amicable settlement of the whole dispute between him/them and the de facto complainant. Crime in this case was registered under Sections..................on the complaint of one............ who is the.............respondent in this proceeding brought under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He/They has/have filed affidavit to the effect that he/they has/have settled the whole dispute with the accused, and he/they has/have no grievance or complaint now.

¶50

(The other person/persons who sustained injuries in the alleged incident is/are the ........respondent No. in this proceeding. He/They has/have also filed affidavit to the effect that He/they has/have settled the whole dispute with the accused and he/they has/have no grievance or complaint now.}

¶51

In so many decisions, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that even in cases involving non-compoundable offences, the High Court can quash theprosecution in pending proceedings, if the parties have really settled the whole dispute amicably out of court, and continuance of the

¶52

Crl.M.C No.150 of 2016

¶53

¶54

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, and I am satisfied that the parties are now on quite cordial terms. 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.

¶55

In the result, this petition is allowed. The prosecution against the petitioner/petitioners herein in ........................of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court/Court of Session ........... will stand quashed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Accordingly, the petitioner/petitioners will stand released from prosecution and the bail bond, if any, executed by him/them will stand discharged.

¶56

P.UBAID

¶57

Crl.M.C No.150 of 2016

¶58

¶59

JUDGE

¶60

Sahar K.K. v. Thasleena

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sahar K.K. v. Thasleena

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

State of Kerala Vs Hydrose

Syam Prakash @ Jose Vs State of Kerala

State of Kerala Vs Vinayan

Jayanandakumar v. Vs Dr.Rajan N.Khobragrade IAS

Firoz Khan Vs Afra N.

Abdul Azeez Vs State of Kerala