Quashed

Shajeer v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC12 Jan 2016Crl.MC/163/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed the criminal proceedings against three accused in a matrimonial dispute involving IPC Sections 406, 420, and 498A. Ordering that the prosecution would not serve any purpose as the parties had amicably settled the dispute and the marriage was dissolved.

What did the court decide?

Prosecution in C.C No. 1942/2015 quashed; petitioners released from prosecution; bail bond discharged.

Shajeer Vs State of Kerala — Kerala HC (2016) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.UBAID

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF JANUARY 2016/22ND POUSHA, 1937

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 163 of 2016

¶6

----------------------IN CC 1942/2015 OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT -I, ALUVA CRIME NO. 364/2013 OF ALUVA POLICE STATION , ERNAKULAM

¶7

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS 1 TO 3:

¶8

1. SHAJEER, AGED 31 YEARS,

¶9

S/O. ABOOBCKER, KUNNASSERY PALLAM HOUSE, MULLANKUZHY BHAGAM, KEEZHMADAU KARA,

¶10

ALUVA EAST VILLAGE

¶11

2. ABOOBACKER, AGED 60 YEARS, S/O. ISMAIL, KUNNASSERRY PALLAM HOUSE, MULLANKUZHY BHAGAM, KEEZHMADU KARA, ALUVA EAST VILLAGE

¶12

3. SUBAIDA, AGED 57 YEARS, W/O. ABOOBACKER, KUNNASSERY PALLAM HOUSE, MULLANKUZHY BHAGAM, KEEZHMADU KARA, ALUVA EAST VILLAGE

¶13

BY ADVS.SRI.JAISON JOSEPH

¶14

SRI.V.M.SAJAN

¶15

RESPONDENTS/STATE AND DE-FACTO COMPLAINANT:

¶16

1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶17

HIGH COURT OF KERALA,

¶18

ERNAKULAM REPRESENTING SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ALUVA POLICE STATION - 683101

¶19

2. RAZEENA M.R, AGED 29 YEARS, D/O. RAZAK, MADATHIPARAMBU VALYAKATH HOUSE, MALIYEKKAMOLAM BHAGAM, PAZHANGANADU KARA, KIZHAKKAMBALAM VILLAGE 683 562

¶20

R2 BY ADV. SMT.ANGELY CHERIAN

¶21

R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.SHEEBA M.T

¶22

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12-01-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

Crl.MC.No. 163 of 2016

¶24

APPENDIX

¶25

PETITIONERS' ANNEXURES:

¶26

ANNEXURE A1: CERTIFIED COPY OF THE CHARGE SHEET/FINAL REPORT IN C.C NO 1942/2015 ON THE FILE OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT 1 ALUVA

¶27

ANNEXURE A2: PHOTOCOPY OF THE MEDIATION AGREEMENT ENTERED BETWEEN THE PETITIONER NO.1 AND RESPONDENT NO.1 AT ERNAKULAM MEDIATION CENTRE

¶28

ANNEXURE A3: AFFIDAVIT FILED BY RESPONDENT NO.2

¶29

RESPONDENTS' ANNEUXRES:

NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.A TO JUDGE

P.UBAID, J.

--------------------------------------Crl.M.C No.163 of 2016

¶36

---------------------------------------

¶37

Dated this the 12^th day of January, 2016

¶38

O R D E R

¶39

The petitioners herein are the three accused in C.C No.1942/2015 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court I, Aluva. 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, 420 and 498A of the Indian Penal Code on the complaint of one Razeena who is the second respondent in this proceeding brought under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The victim's affidavit shows that the whole matrimonial dispute stands resolved forever, and that the marriage stands dissolved by pronouncement of Talaq. The affidavit also shows that the victim has received all her dues under the law as a divorced Muslim woman. In such a situation, it is appropriate that the prosecution be quashed.

¶40

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

¶41

Crl.M.C No.163 of 2016 2

¶42

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.

¶43

In the result, this petition is allowed. The prosecution against the petitioners herein in C.C No.1942/2015 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court I, Aluva 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.

¶44

Sd/P.UBAID JUDGE

¶45

//True Copy//

¶46

Shajeer v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shajeer 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

Jayanandakumar v. Vs Dr.Rajan N.Khobragrade IAS

Sahar K.K. Vs Thasleena

Firoz Khan Vs Afra N.

T.Noorjahan Vs Saithalavi

Abdul Jabbar P.P. Vs Station House Officer

Junais Vs Sumayya