Allowed

Saifudeen v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC18 Jan 2016Crl.MC/51/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a criminal miscellaneous petition seeking quashing of prosecution under Section 482 CrPC for offences under Sections 323, 498A IPC read with Section 34 IPC. Finding a genuine amicable settlement and resolution of the matrimonial dispute between the parties, the Court held that no purpose would be served by continuing the proceedings and ordered the proceedings against the ac

What did the court decide?

The petition for quashing the prosecution was allowed; C.C. No. 2675/2010 stands quashed under Section 482 CrPC, and the bail bond, if any, stands discharged.

Saifudeen Vs State of Kerala — Domestic Violence | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.UBAID

¶4

MONDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF JANUARY 2016/28TH POUSHA, 1937

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 51 of 2016 ()

¶6

CC 2675/2010 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE'S COURT-II, KOLLAM

¶7

CRIME NO. 1303/2010 OF KOTTIYAM POLICE STATION , KOLLAM

¶8

PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED 1 TO 4:

¶9

1. SAIFUDEEN, AGED 34 YEARS (AI)

¶10

S/O IBRAHIM KUTTY, AMBALATHARA VEEDU MYLAKKAD CHERI ADHICHANALLUR VILLAGE

¶11

KOLLADM DISTRICT

¶12

2. IBRAHIM KUTTY,AGED 66 YEARS (A2)

¶13

S/O MAIDEEN KUNHU, AMBALATHARA VEEDU MYLAKKAD CHERI ADHICHANALLUR VILLAGE KOLLADM DISTRICT

¶14

3. JAMEELA, AGED 61 YEARS (A3) W/O IBRAHIM KUTTY, AMBALATHARA VEEDU MYLAKKAD CHERI ADHICHANALLUR VILLAGE KOLLADM DISTRICT

¶15

4. NAIZAM, AGED 44 YEARS (A4) S/O IBRAHIM KUTTY, AMBALATHARA VEEDU MYLAKKAD CHERI ADHICHANALLUR VILLAGE KOLLADM DISTRICT

¶16

BY ADVS.SRI.BINU GEORGE SMT.HEMALATHA

¶17

RESPONDENT(S)/STATE:

¶18

1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM- 682 031

¶19

2. SUBINA

¶20

D/O ABDUL RASHEED , SUBINA MANZIL MYLAPOOR CHERIUMAYANALLOOR PO, THAZHUTHAL VILLAGE KOLLAM DISTRICT 691 589

¶21

R2 BY ADV. SRI.R.RAJESH(PULLIKADA) R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. SHEEBA M.T.

¶22

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18-012016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

Crl.MC.No. 51 of 2016 ()

¶24

APPENDIX

¶25

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶26

ANNEXURE 1; CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CC 2675/10 ON THE FILE FO JFCM-II, KOLLAM

¶27

ANNEXURE 2: A TRUE COPY OF AGREEMENT DT. 14/12/12

¶28

ANNEXURE 3: AFFIDAVIT DT. 14/12/15 SWORN BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT

¶29

RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS: NIL

¶30

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

/TRUE COPY/

P.A. TO JUDGE

SKV

P.UBAID, J.

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

Crl.M.C No.51 OF 2016 ===================

¶37

Dated this the 18^th day of January, 2016

¶38

ORDER

¶39

The petitioners herein are the accused in C.C. No.2675/2010 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate CourtII,Kollam. 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 323, 498A read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code on the complaint of one Subina who is the 2^nd 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

¶40

has no grievance or complaint now.

¶41

In so many decisions, the Hon'ble Supreme Court

¶42

has held that even in cases involving non-compoundable

¶43

Crl.M.C No.51 OF 2016 -2-

¶44

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 further proceedings 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.

¶45

The victim's affidavit shows that the whole matrimonial dispute stands resolved forever. It is submitted that the victim has joined her husband in matrimony and they are now very happy in matrimony. . In such a situation, it is appropriate that the prosecution be quashed.

¶46

Crl.M.C No.51 OF 2016 -3-

¶47

In the result, this petition is allowed. The prosecution against the petitioners herein in C.C. No.2675/2010 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-II, Kollam 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.

¶48

P.UBAID,JUDGE

¶49

SKV

Saifudeen v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saifudeen 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

Vijayan Vs Pramod

Salah Said Al Ghailini Vs Sufeena M.P

Ashokan Vs State of Kerala

Sali Muhammed Vs Haseena K.

Abdulsalam Vs State of Kerala

Narayanan Namboodiri V.P. Vs State of Kerala