Allowed

Firoz Khan v. Afra N.

Kerala HC11 Jan 2016Crl.MC/154/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal miscellaneous case, the High Court quashed the prosecution against three accused persons in a matrimonial dispute involving charges under IPC 406 and 498(A). The Court accepted a victim's affidavit stating the entire dispute was settled amicably, finding no public interest involved and that continuing the trial would be futile.

What did the court decide?

The prosecution in C.C No. 1251 of 2015 was quashed; petitioners released from prosecution and discharged from bail bond.

Firoz Khan Vs Afra N. — Matrimonial and Divorce | 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. 154 of 2016 ()

¶6

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN CC 1251/2015 of J.M.F.C.-II,PERINTHALMANNA CRIME NO. 1204/2014 OF PERINTHALMANNA POLICE STATION , MALAPPURAM

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED NOS.1 TO 3:

¶8

FIROZ KHAN AGED 34 YEARS S/O.ABOOBAKER, PALLIYALTHODI HOUSE, MELE KALIKAVU KALIKAVU P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶9

ABOOBAKER

¶10

S/O.MOIDEEN, PALLIYATHODI HOUSE, MELE KALIKAVU KALIKAVU P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶11

SAFIYA

¶12

W/O.ABOOBAKER, PALLIYATHODI HOUSE, MELE KALIKAVU KALIKAVU P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶13

BY ADVS.SRI.P.K.MOHAMED JAMEEL

¶14

SRI.ABDUL KADER KANNETH

¶15

RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANTS:

¶16

AFRA N., AGED 25 YEARS D/O.NEDUMANNIL ABOOBAKER, NEDUMANNIL MANATHUMANGALAM P.O., PERINTHALMANNA TALUK MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶17

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031.

¶18

R1 BY ADV. SRI.ABDUL SHUKOOR MUNDAMBRA

¶19

R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.SHEEBA M.T.

¶20

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

¶21

Crl.MC.No. 154 of 2016 ()

¶22

APPENDIX

¶23

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶24

ANNEXURE-A1: CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO.1204/2014 OF PERINTALMANNA POLICE STATION.

¶25

ANNEXURE-A2: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTARIZED AGREEMENT DATED 11.11.2015 EXECUTED BETWEEN THE 1ST PETITIONER AND 1ST RESPONDENT. ANNEXURE-A3: ORIGINAL COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT OF 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶26

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS

/TRUE COPY

P.S TO JUDGE

P.UBAID, J.

~~~~~~~~~~

Crl. M.C No.154 of 2016

¶33

~~~~~~~~~~~

¶34

Dated this the 11^th January,2016

¶35

O R D E R

¶36

The petitioners herein are the three accused in C.C No.1251 of 2015 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Perinthalmanna. 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 406 and 498(A) read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code on the complaint of one Afra, who 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.

¶37

The victim's affidavit shows that the whole dispute stands resolved forever. It is submitted that the marriage stands dissolved, and the claims of the victim also stand settled. In such a situation, it is appropriate that the pending prosecution be quashed.

¶38

In so many decisions, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that even in cases involving non-compoundable

¶39

Crl. M.C No.154 of 2016

¶40

¶41

offences, the High Court can quash the prosecution in pending 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.

¶42

In the result, this petition is allowed. The prosecution against the petitioners herein in C.C No.1251 of 2015 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-II, Perinthalmanna 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.

¶43

P.UBAID JUDGE

¶44

Firoz Khan v. Afra N.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Firoz Khan v. Afra N.

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

Sahar K.K. Vs Thasleena

Abdul Azeez Vs State of Kerala