Allowed

Salman Fareeq v. the Sub Inspector of Police

Kerala HC26 Mar 2018Crl.MC/1627/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed the petitioner-appellants petition. The court invoked jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings involving matrimonial cruelty and related offences after ascertaining that the disputes were settled and a divorce had been obtained.

What did the court decide?

All further proceedings arising from Crime No.1089 of 2016 will stand quashed.

Salman Fareeq Vs the Sub Inspector of Police — Matrimonial and Divorce | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS

¶4

MONDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF MARCH 2018 / 5TH CHAITHRA, 1940

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 1627 of 2018

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC 25/2017 of C.J.M.PALAKKAD CRIME NO. 1089/2016 OF TOWN NORTH POLICE STATION , PALAKKAD

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED 1-3:

¶8

1 SALMAN FAREEQ

¶9

AGED 31 YEARS, S/O. BADARUDEEN,

¶10

SUHARA APPARTMENTS, CHUNKAM,

¶11

PIRAYIRI, PALAKKAD - 678 004.

¶12

2 BADARUDEEN

¶13

AGED 59 YEARS, S/O. MOIDEEN,

¶14

SUHARA APPARTMENTS, CHUNKAM,

¶15

PIRAYIRI, PALAKKAD - 678 004.

¶16

3 SALAMA

¶17

AGED 52 YEARS, W/O. BADARUDEEN,

¶18

SUHARA APPARTMENTS, CHUNKAM,

¶19

PIRAYIRI, PALAKKAD - 678 004.

¶20

BY ADV.SRI.V.A.VINOD

¶21

RESPONDENT(S)/STATE AND COMPLAINANT:

¶22

1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE PALAKKAD TOWN NORTH POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD - 678 001.

¶23

2. STATE OF KERALA

¶24

REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,

¶25

HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 682 031.

¶26

3. JASEENA

¶27

AGED 25 YEARS, D/O. YUSUF,

¶28

PARAKUNNAM HOUSE, PARAKUNNAM P.O.,

¶29

PALAKKAD - 678 001.

¶30

R3 BY ADV. SRI.S.JAYAPRAKASH (MADAVOOR) R BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR:SRI AMJAD ALI

¶31

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26-03-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶32

Crl.MC.No. 1627 of 2018 ()

¶33

APPENDIX

¶34

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS:

¶35

ANNEXURE A1. CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIRST INFORMATION REPORT IN CRIME NO. 1089/2016 OF PALAKKAD TOWN NORTH POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD

¶36

ANNEXURE A2. CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN C.C.NO.25/2017 ON THE FILES OF CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, PALAKKAD

¶37

ANNEXURE A3. TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN IN BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT

¶38

RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS:NIL

¶39

True Copy / P A to Judge

¶40

SUNIL THOMAS, J.

¶41

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

¶42

Crl.M.C.No.1627 of 2018

¶43

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

¶44

Dated this the 26^th day of March, 2018

¶45

ORDER

¶46

Petitioners herein stand arrayed as accused Nos.1 to 3 in Crime No.1089 of 2016 of Palakkad Town North Police Station for offences punishable under sections 341, 323, 294, 506(i), 354 and 498A r/w 34 of the Indian Pneal Code now pending as C.C.No.25 of 2017 of Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Palakkad.

¶47

It is an admitted facts that the first accused had married

¶48

the third respondent herein on 30.06.2013. There is an allegation that, she was subjected to matrimonial cruelty by the husband and the relatives. Complaint was laid against them and crime was registered. After investigation, final report was laid against all the three accused, who have approached this Court as the petitioners.

¶49

Pending the proceedings, it is stated that the matrimonial disputes were settled and the subject matter of the case has been resolved in the presence of respectable mediators. Crl.M.C is laid on the premise that, all further proceedings may be quashed in the above circumstance. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that, they have got divorce, which is affirmed by the defacto complainant in her affidavit filed as Annexure-III.

¶50

Crl.M.C.1627/18

¶51

¶52

Learned Public Prosecutor also asserted that the matter has been settled between the parties and there is no grievance surviving. Learned Public Prosecutor on instructions submitted that the statement of the victim was recorded by the police.

¶53

Having considered the nature of allegations, which clearly shows that the dispute is a purely personal one and also having regard to the settled legal position, I am inclined to invoke the jurisdiction under section 482 Cr.P.C to quash the criminal proceedings.

¶54

In the result, Crl.M.C is allowed. All further proceedings arising from Crime No.1089 of 2016 of Palakkad Town North Police Station will stand quashed.

¶55

Sd/-

¶56

SUNIL THOMAS Judge

¶57

True Copy / P A to Judge

¶58

Sbna/26/3/18

Salman Fareeq v. the Sub Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Salman Fareeq v. the Sub Inspector of Police

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

Sanoop Vs State of Kerala

Ullas Vs State of Kerala

Hashim Vs State of Kerala

Muhammed Shareef Vs State of Kerala

Suhaib Vs State of Kerala

Hassan Kutty Vs State of Kerala