Allowed

Muneer v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC3 Aug 2017Crl.MC/3291/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed a criminal miscellaneous petition seeking quashing of criminal proceedings under sections 498A and 406 IPC. The court held that since the matrimonial dispute was settled and the complainant was residing with the accused, the matter could be disposed of in exercise of inherent powers.

What did the court decide?

Quashed the final report and further proceedings against the petitioners in C.C.No.5/2017.

Muneer Vs State of Kerala — Matrimonial and Divorce | Kerala HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF AUGUST 2017/12TH SRAVANA, 1939

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 3291 of 2017 () ---------------------------

¶6

CC 5/2017 of J.M.F.C., PERAMBRA

¶7

CRIME NO. 713/2016 OF PERAMBRA POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE

¶8

PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED 1-5:

¶9

1. MUNEER S/O. AMMED, AGED 40 YEARS MADATHIL HOUSE KOLIKKANDY PERAMBRA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT

¶10

2. AMMED S/O. KUNHABDULLA AGED 65 YEARS MADATHIL HOUSE KOLIKKANDY PERAMBRA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT

¶11

3. AYISHA W/O. AMMAD AGED 55 YEARS MADATHIL HOUSE KOLIKKANDY PERAMBRA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT

¶12

4. SUBAIDA W/O.ASHRAF AGED 30 YEARS PUTHUVANDY MADATHIL HOUSE KOLIKKANDY PERAMBRA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT

¶13

5. ASHRAF S/O.PAKRAN AGED 45 YEARS PUTHUVANDY MADATHIL HOUSE KOLIKKANDY PERAMBRA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT

¶14

BY ADV. SRI.K.P.SUDHEER

¶15

Crl.MC.No. 3291 of 2017 ()

¶16

:: 2 ::

¶17

RESPONDENT(S)/STATE & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:

¶18

1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTING SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE PERAMBRA POLICE STATION PERAMBRA-673525, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT

¶19

2. SAFEENA AGED 32 YEARS D/O. MOIDEEN KIZHAKKUPURATH HOUSE PANTHIRIKKARA AVADUKKA.P.O. PERUVANNAMUZHY KOZHIKODE DISTRICT- 673 528

¶20

R2 BY ADV. SRI.ARUN MATHEW VADAKKAN R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.C.K.PRASAD

¶21

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03-08-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

Crl.MC.No. 3291 of 2017 ()

¶23

APPENDIX

¶24

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶25

ANNEXURE A1	CERTIFIED COPY OF FIRST INFORMATION REPORT DATED 28.7.2016 IN CRIME NO. 713/2016 PERAMBRA POLICE STATION
ANNEXURE A2	TRUE COPY OF CHARGE AND THE MEMORANDUM OF EVIDENCE DATED 30.9.2016 IN CRIME NO. 713/2016 OF PERAMBRA POLICE STATION
ANNEXURE A3	AFFIDAVIT DATED 17.3.2017 EXECUTED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT

¶26

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE

STK

B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, J.

¶31

-------------------------------Crl.M.C. No. 3291 of 2017

¶32

Dated this the 3^rd day of August, 2017

¶33

O R D E R

¶34

The petitioners are accused in C.C.No.5/2017 on the files of the court below. The offences alleged are the offences under Sections 498A and 406 IPC.

¶35

Heard.

¶36

It has been submitted by the learned counsel for

¶37

the parties and the learned Public Prosecutor that the matter has been settled and the second respondent, who is the defacto complainant, is presently residing with the first petitioner as husband and wife under one roof. The second respondent filed affidavit stating that the matter has been settled and she is presently residing with her husband and their children under one roof. The above dispute arose out of matrimonial relationship. Therefore, since the matter has been settled, I am inclined to quash the final report and

¶38

Crl.M.C. No. 3291 of 2017

¶39

-: 2 :-

¶40

further proceedings against the petitioners in C.C.No.5/2017 on the files of the court below, in exercise of the inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to meet the ends of justice and accordingly, I order so.

¶41

In the result, this Crl.M.C. stands allowed.

¶42

Sd/-

¶43

B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, JUDGE

¶44

STK

¶45

//TRUE COPY//

¶46

//P.A. TO JUDGE//

Muneer v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Muneer 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

Tito Thomas Vs Revenue Divisional Officer/Sub Divisional Magistrate

Arsha Vs State of Kerala

Jesso Joseph Vs the State of Kerala

Baburaj M.R. Vs State of Kerala

Navas Vs Rajeena

Bincy Jacob Vs State of Kerala