Quashed

Shereef Sahadi Eniyadi v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC3 Jun 2019Crl.MC/133/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court quashed criminal proceedings against the petitioner for offences under the POCSO Act. The court noted an amicable settlement between the petitioner and the complainant, evidenced by an affidavit, and held that continuing the prosecution would serve no purpose under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

What did the court decide?

Impugned FIR Crime No. 360/2018 and all further proceedings against the accused are quashed.

Shereef Sahadi Eniyadi Vs the State of Kerala — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS

¶4

MONDAY, THE 03RD DAY OF JUNE 2019 / 13TH JYAISHTA, 1941

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 133 of 2019

¶6

CRIME NO. 360/2018 OF Bekal Police Station , Kasargod

¶7

PETITIONER/S:

¶8

SHEREEF SAHADI ENIYADI AGED 33 YEARS S/O. ANDUMAN, RESIDING AT MOOLA HOUSE, ENIYADI, BANDADUKA, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADVS. SRI.T.MADHU SMT.C.R.SARADAMANI

¶10

RESPONDENT/S:

¶11

1 THE STATE OF KERALA, THROUGH THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, BEKAL POLICE STATION, KASARAGOD DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031

¶12

2 SOUDABI P.A., D/O. ABBAS P.A., AND RABIYA, AGED 15 YEARS, REPRESENTED BY HER MOTHER AND GUARDIAN RABIYA, W/O. ABBAS, AGED 43 YEARS, RESIDING AT RASHEEDA MANZIL, NEAR GOVT. HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, THACHANGAD, PANAYAL VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT-671 315

¶13

BY ADV. PADMANABHA K

¶14

OTHER PRESENT:

¶15

SRI.SAIGI JACOB PALATTY, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶16

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03.06.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.

¶18

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

¶19

Crl.M.C.No. 133 of 2019

¶20

================== Dated this the 3^rd day of June, 2019 O R D E R

¶21

The petitioner herein is the accused in the impugned Anx. A-1

¶22

FIR in Crime No.360/2018 of Bekal Police Station, registered for offences punishable under Secs.7, 8, 9(f) and 10 of the POCSO Act, on the basis of the complaint of the 2^nd respondent defacto complainant. It is stated that now the entire disputes between the petitioner and the 2^nd respondent defacto complainant have been settled amicably and that the 2^nd respondent has sworn to Anx. A-2 affidavit before this Court, wherein it is stated that she has settled the entire disputes with the petitioner and that she has no objection for quashment of the impugned criminal proceedings pending against the petitioner. It is in the light of these aspects that the petitioner has preferred the instant Crl.M.C. with the prayer to quash the impugned criminal proceedings against him.

¶23

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 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

¶24

Crl.M.C.133/19 - : 3 :-

¶25

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.

¶26

Accordingly, it is ordered in the interest of justice that the impugned Anx.A-1 FIR in Crime No.360/2018 of Bekal Police Station and all further proceedings arising therefrom pending against the accused will stand quashed.

¶27

The petitioner will produce certified copies of this order before the investigating officer concerned and the competent court below

¶28

Crl.M.C.133/19 - : 4 :-

¶29

concerned. The office of the Advocate General will forward copy of this order to the investigating officer concerned for information.

¶30

With these observations and directions, the above Criminal

¶31

Miscellaneous Case stands finally disposed of.

¶32

sdk+

¶33

Sd/- ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE

¶34

Crl.M.C.133/19 - : 5 :-

¶35

APPENDIX

¶36

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶37

ANNEXURE A1	THE TRUE COP	Y OF	THE FIR IN CRIME NO.
	360/2018 OF BE	KAL POL	ICE STATION.
ANNEXURE A2	THE AFFIDAVIT	DATED	12/12/2018 SWORN IN BY
	THE MOTHER OF	THE VIC	TIM

Shereef Sahadi Eniyadi v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shereef Sahadi Eniyadi v. the 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

Shareef C.a., Vs State of Kerala

Francis, Vs Silva

Saritha.S Vs Karthikeyan

Shakkir Ummar, Vs Station House Officer

Saheer a.P., Vs Rafseena M.

Rasheed Vs State of Kerala