Allowed

Abdulsalam v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC18 Jan 2016Crl.MC/55/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court allowed a criminal miscellaneous petition seeking quashing of prosecution under Sections 498A and 406 IPC. The court found a genuine amicable settlement between the accused and the complainant, noting that continuing the prosecution would serve no purpose and waste judicial time.

What did the court decide?

The prosecution against the petitioners in C.C. No.1679/2015 will stand quashed under Section 482 CrPC; petitioners released from prosecution and bail bond discharged.

Abdulsalam Vs State of Kerala — 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 18TH DAY OF JANUARY 2016/28TH POUSHA, 1937

¶5

CRL.MC.NO. 55 OF 2016 ()

¶6

CC 1679/2015 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT - I, KARUNAGAPPALLY

¶7

CRIME NO. 1625/2015 OF KARUNAAGAPALLY POLICE STATION, KOLLAM

¶8

PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED:

¶9

1. ABDULSALAM, AGED 26 YEARS

¶10

S/O. KUNJUMOITHU, MALAYIL, THAZHATHETHILVEEDU

¶11

KANIPPAYYOOR VILLAGE, KUNNAKULAM, THALAPPILLY

¶12

THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶13

2. KUNJUMOITHU,

¶14

MALAYIL, THAZHATHETHILVEEDU, KANIPPAYYOOR VILLAGE

¶15

KUNNAKULAM, THALAPPILLY, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶16

3. AYISHA,

¶17

W/O. KUNJUMOITHU, MALAYIL, THAZHATHETHILVEEDU

¶18

KANIPPAYYOOR VILLAGE, KUNNAKULAM, THALAPPILLY

¶19

THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶20

4. SHABINA, W/O. ABDULSALAM, KARUPPAM VEETIL, CHOVVALLOOR KUNNAMKULAM VILLAGE, THALAPPILLY, THRISSUR DISTRICT

¶21

BY ADV. SRI.S.SHAJI

¶22

RESPONDENT(S)/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT AND STATE:

¶23

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

¶24

2. SHAHANAMOL,

¶25

D/O. SHAREEF, KUTTIKATTIL KIZHAKKATHIL PULIYOOR VNCHI EAST MURI, THODIYUR VILLAGE KARUNAGAPALLY TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT 691 001.

¶26

R2 BY ADV. SRI.P.E.ISHAQ

¶27

R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. SHEEBA M.T.

¶28

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

¶29

CRL.MC.NO. 55 OF 2016

¶30

APPENDIX

¶31

PETITIONERS EXHIBITS:

¶32

ANNEXURE A1:COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.1625/2015 REGISTERED BY KARUNAGAPPALLY POLICE STATION.

¶33

ANNEXURE A2:COPY OF CHARGE SHEET IN CRIME NO.1625/2015 REGISTERED BY KARUNAGAPPALLY POLICE STATION.

¶34

ANNEXURE A3:COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 22.12.2015

¶35

RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS: NIL

¶36

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

SKV

P.UBAID, J.

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

Crl.M.C No.55 OF 2016

¶41

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

¶42

Dated this the 18^th day of January, 2016

¶43

ORDER

¶44

The petitioners herein are the accused in C.C.

¶45

No.1679/2015 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Karunagappally. 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, 498A read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code on the complaint of one Shahanamol 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 has no grievance or complaint now.

¶46

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

¶47

Crl.M.C No.55 OF 2016 -2

¶48

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.

¶49

The victim's affidavit shows that the whole matrimonial 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 prosecution be quashed.

¶50

In the result, this petition is allowed. The prosecution against the petitioners herein in C.C.

¶51

Crl.M.C No.55 OF 2016 -3

¶52

No.1679/2015 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Karunagappally 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.

¶53

P.UBAID,JUDGE

¶54

SKV

Abdulsalam v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abdulsalam 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

Cases cited

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.

Saifudeen Vs State of Kerala

Narayanan Namboodiri V.P. Vs State of Kerala