Allowed

Mubeen Musthafa v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC5 Apr 2018Crl.MC/1855/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal miscellaneous petition requested quashing of criminal proceedings for offences under sections 498A, 313, 323, and 34 IPC based on a family dispute. The court acknowledged a settlement agreement signed between parties and affidavits confirming the resolution of grievances. Declaring it a fit case, the court invoked Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Crl.M.C.No. 1855 of 2018 allowed; All further proceedings in CC No. 45/2018 will stand quashed.

Mubeen Musthafa Vs State of Kerala — 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

THURSDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF APRIL 2018 / 15TH CHAITHRA, 1940

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 1855 of 2018

¶6

PENDING AS CC 45/2018 of JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-II, HARIPAD

¶7

CRIME NO. 1665/2016 OF HARIPAD POLICE STATION , ALAPPUZHA

¶8

PETITIONER(S)

¶9

1 MUBEEN MUSTHAFA, AGED 27

¶10

S/O.MUHAMMED MUSTHAFA, MUBEEN MANZIL,

¶11

NEAR AYAPARAMBU RAILWAY CROSS,

¶12

AYAPARAMBU MURI, CHERUTHANA VILLAGE, HARIPAD

¶13

KARTHIKAPPALLY TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT-690 514.

¶14

2 MUSTHAFA, AGED 66 YEARS

¶15

MUBEEN MANZIL,

¶16

NEAR AYAPARAMBU RAILWAY CROSS,

¶17

AYAPARAMBU MURI, CHERUTHANA VILLAGE, HARIPAD

¶18

KARTHIKAPPALLY TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT-690 514.

¶19

3 RASHEEDA BEEVI, AGED 48 YEARS, W/O.MUSTHAFA,

¶20

MUBEEN MANZIL,

¶21

NEAR AYAPARAMBU RAILWAY CROSS,

¶22

AYAPARAMBU MURI, CHERUTHANA VILLAGE, HARIPAD

¶23

KARTHIKAPPALLY TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT-690 514.

¶24

4 SHEMS, AGED 55, RASAKKU,

¶25

SURYA MANZIL, THAMALLACKAL P.O.,

¶26

KUMARAPURAM VILLAGE, HARIPAD

¶27

ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT-690 515.

¶28

5 SULFATH, AGED 42, W/O.SHEMS, SURYA MANZIL, THAMALLACKAL P.O., KUMARAPURAM VILLAGE, HARIPAD ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT-690 515.

¶29

BY ADV.SRI.G.BENO

¶30

RESPONDENT(S):

¶31

1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, COCHIN-682031

¶32

Crl.MC.No. 1855 of 2018

¶33

2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, HARIPAD POLICE STATION, HARIPAD P.O., ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT-690 514

¶34

3. SUMAYA, AGED 21 YEARS, D/O.SHAMSUDEEN, VAZHUVELIL VEEDU, VALLIKKUNNAM P.O., KANNIMEL MURI, VALLIKUNNAM VILLAGE, MAVELIKKARA TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT-690 501

¶35

R3 BY ADV. SRI.S.SAMEER

¶36

R1 & 2 BY SRI.AMJAD ALI, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶37

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05-04-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶38

Crl.MC.No. 1855 of 2018 ()

¶39

APPENDIX

¶40

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶41

ANNEXURE A1 TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.1665 OF 2016 OF HARIPAD POLICE STATION. ANNEXURE A2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 07/11/2017 OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT IN CRL.MC.NO.7215/2017 ANNEXURE A3 TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT ANNEXURE A4 TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 12/03/2018. ANNEXURE A5 ORIGINAL AFFIDAVIT OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶42

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS NIL

R.AV

//TRUE COPY//

PA TO JUDGE

SUNIL THOMAS, J.

Crl.M.C.No.1855 of 2018

¶48

Dated this the 5^th day of April, 2018

¶49

O R D E R

¶50

The petitioners herein are the accused in CC.No.45/2018 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Haripad arising from Crime No.1665/2016 of Haripad Police Station for offences punishable under sections 498A, 313, 323 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶51

The first petitioner had married the third respondent, who is the defacto complainant. The petitioners 2 to 5 are the father, mother and paternal uncle and aunt of the first petitioner. Arraying the above persons as accused, complaint was laid, alleging that the third respondent was subjected to matrimonial cruelty by the petitioners. It was also stated that she was physically assaulted resulting in abortion. Pursuant to the crime registered as Crime No.1665/2016 of Haripad Police Station, investigation

¶52

was conducted and final report was laid. The

¶53

Crl.M.C.No.1855 of 2018

¶54

¶55

petitioners have approached this court contended that the disputes have been resolved between the parties. To buttress that submission, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied on Annexure-A5 affidavit, affirmed by the third respondent. The learned counsel for the third respondent acknowledged the due execution of the affidavit and affirmed that the matrimonial disputes have been fully settled and and agreement to that effect has been executed on 12.03.2018. It was also clarified that all financial liabilities existing between the parties have also been settled. Pursuant to the above settlement, parties have withdrawn other matrimonial cases also. A copy of the agreement is produced as Annexure-A4. The learned counsel for the petitioner also acknowledged the execution of this agreement. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the parties have resolved their dispute and there is no surviving grievance against each other. Having considered these facts, I

¶56

Crl.M.C.No.1855 of 2018

¶57

¶58

am satisfied that this is a fit case, being one arising from a matrimonial dispute, in which section 482 Cr.P.C can be invoked.

¶59

Accordingly, Crl.M.C is allowed. All further proceedings in CC.No.45/2018 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Haripad arising from Crime No.1665/2016 of Haripad Police Station will stand quashed.

¶60

Sd/-

¶61

SUNIL THOMAS, JUDGE

¶62

R.AV

¶63

//True Copy//

¶64

PA to Judge

Mubeen Musthafa v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mubeen Musthafa 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

Sherin v.John Vs State of Kerala

Vishnu Vs the State of Kerala

Muhammedali Vs the State of Kerala

Sadiq Jaleel Vs State of Kerala

Ganeshan P.K Vs State of Kerala

Hussain Vs State of Kerala