Allowed

Mansoor T.P. v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC17 Jun 2019Crl.MC/1190/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Kerala allowed a petition by accused persons seeking quashment of criminal proceedings under Sections 498A, 341, and 323 IPC. The Court, noting a settled dispute and a valid affidavit from the second respondent, applied settled precedents to dismiss the prosecution under Section 482 CrPC as it served no purpose.

What did the court decide?

The impugned final report/charge sheet and all further proceedings arising therefrom pending against the accused persons were quashed.

Mansoor T.P. Vs State of Kerala — Matrimonial and Divorce | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS

¶4

MONDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF JUNE 2019 / 27TH JYAISHTA, 1941

¶5

Crl.MC.No.1190 of 2019

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC 152/2017 of JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS ,PAYYANNUR

¶7

CRIME NO.1082/2016 OF Payangadi Police Station , Kannur

¶8

PETITIONER/S:

¶9

1 MANSOOR T.P. AGED 37 YEARS S/O. KHALID, THAZHATHE PURAYIL HOUSE, KUNHIMANGALAM AMSOM DESOM, KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶10

2 RUKHIYA. T.P. AGED 1 YEARS W/O. KHALID, -DO-,

¶11

3 ABIDA.T.P., AGED 1 YEARS W/O. ABDULLA, MTP HOUSE, KUNHIMANGALAM, KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶12

4 SAMEERA. T.P., AGED 1 YEARS

¶13

DO. KHALID, THAZHATHE PURAYIL HOUSE, KUNHIMANGALAM AMSOM DESOM, KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶14

5 NOORJA.T.P., AGED 1 YEARS W/O. ETHAB, THAZHATHE PURAYIL HOUSE, KUNHIMANGALAM AMSOM DESOM, KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶15

6 MANSOORA. T.P. AGED 1 YEARS W/O. SHAMEEM, THAZHATHE PURAYIL HOUSE, KUNHIMANGALAM AMSOM DESOM, KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶16

BY ADV. SRI.T.V.JAYAKUMAR NAMBOODIRI

¶17

RESPONDENT/S: 1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM 682 031. 2 RASHIDA AGED 27 YEARS D/O. KUNHAHAMMAD, KALLITTA VALAPPIL HOUSE, MATTOOL AMSOM , KANNUR DISTRICT, 679 001. BY ADV. SRI.V.SUMESH

¶18

OTHER PRESENT:

¶19

SMT.PRIYA SHANAVAS, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR FOR R1

¶20

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17.06.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.

¶22

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

¶23

Crl.M.C.No. 1190 of 2019

¶24

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

¶25

Dated this the 17^th day of June, 2019

¶26

O R D E R

¶27

The petitioners herein are accused in the impugned Anx. A-1 final report/charge sheet filed in Crime No. 1082/2016 of Payangadi Police Station, registered for offences punishable under Secs.498A, 341, 323 read with Sec.34 of the I.P.C., which has led to the institution of C.C.No. 152/2017 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Payyannur, on the basis of the complaint of the 2^nd respondent defacto complainant. It is stated that now the entire disputes between the petitioners and the 2^nd respondent defacto complainant have been settled amicably and that the 2^nd respondent has sworn to Anx.III affidavit before this Court, wherein it is stated that she has settled the entire disputes with the petitioners and that she has no objection for quashment of the impugned criminal proceedings pending against the petitioners. It is in the light of these aspects that the petitioners have preferred the instant Crl.M.C. with the prayer to quash the impugned criminal proceedings against them.

¶28

In a catena of decisions, the Apex Court has held that, in appropriate cases involving even non-compoundable offences, the High Court can quash prosecution by exercise of the powers under

¶29

Crl.M.C.1190/19 - : 4 :-

¶30

Sec.482 of the Cr.P.C., if the parties have really settled the whole dispute or if the continuance of the prosecution will not serve any purpose. Here, this Court finds a real case of settlement between the parties and it is also found that continuance of the prosecution in such a situation will not serve any purpose other than wasting the precious time of the court, when the case ultimately comes before the court. On a perusal of the petition and on a close scrutiny of the investigation materials on record and the affidavit of settlement and taking into account the attendant facts and circumstances of this case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the legal principles laid down by the Apex Court in the cases as in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab reported in 2013 (1) SCC (Cri) 160 = (2012) 10 SCC 303 and Narinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and anr . reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466, more particularly paragraph 29 thereof, could be applied in this case to consider the prayer for quashment.

¶31

Accordingly, it is ordered in the interest of justice that the impugned Anx. A-1 final report/charge sheet filed in Crime No. 1082/2016 of Payangadi Police Station, registered for offences punishable under Secs.498A, 341, 323 read with Sec.34 of the I.P.C.,

¶32

Crl.M.C.1190/19 - : 5 :-

¶33

which has led to the institution of C.C.No. 152/2017 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Payyannur and all further proceedings arising therefrom pending against the accused persons will stand quashed.

¶34

The petitioners will produce certified copies of this order before the investigating officer concerned and the competent court below concerned. The office of the Advocate General will forward copy of this order to the investigating officer concerned for information.

¶35

With these observations and directions, the above Criminal Miscellaneous Case stands finally disposed of.

¶36

sdk+

¶37

Sd/- ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE

¶38

Crl.M.C.1190/19 - : 6 :-

¶39

APPENDIX

¶40

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶41

ANNEXURE A1 THE CERTIFICATED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CC. 152/2017 PENDING BEFORE JFCM COURT, PAYYANUR.

¶42

ANNEXURE A11 TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 5.1.2019. ANNEXURE AIII COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT IN MALAYALAM DATED 6.2.2019.

¶43

ANNEXURE A IV COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT DATED 6.2.2019.

Mansoor T.P. v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mansoor T.P. 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

Shameer B.L. Vs State of Kerala

K.P.Jinachandran Vs Parakkal Pushpa

Jose Vs State of Kerala

Suma Dayalan Vs State of Kerala

Hashim @ Asham Vs State of Kerala

Vipin.K.v Vs State of Kerala