Petitioners sought quashing of criminal proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. alleging breach of trust regarding property. Court allowed petition noting private settlement, remote conviction risk, and absence of public interest, quashing the case.
The petition was allowed; all further proceedings pursuant to the final report under C.C. No.1633 of 2016 are quashed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
MONDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF JUNE 2019 / 3RD ASHADHA, 1941
CRL.MC.NO.2235 OF 2018
AGAINST C.C. NO.1633/2016 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASSIII, ATTINGAL (TEMPORARY)
CRIME NO.1306/2015 OF CHIRAYINKEEZHU POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 & 2:
1 SHAREEF, AGED 43 YEARS, S/O.MUHAMMED HANEEFA, PANAYATHARA VEEDU, CHIRAYINKEEZHU P.O., KOONTHALLOOR VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.
2 ANZI, AGED 33 YEARS, W/O.SHAREEF,PANAYATHARA VEEDU, CHIRAYINKEEZHU P.O., KOONTHALLOOR VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SRI.P.ANOOP (MULAVANA)
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA -682 031.
2 SHINE, KALLUVILA VEEDU, CHUMADUTANGI, MUDAPURAM P.O., KIZHIVILAM VILLAGE, CHIRAYINKEEZHU TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
BY ADV. SRI.M.R.SARIN
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI. M. S. BREEZ, SENIOR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24.06.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
CRL.MC.NO.2235 OF 2018
2
ORDER
This petition is filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.
CRL.MC.NO.2235 OF 2018
3
to by the 2nd respondent, he has stated that he has no further grievance against the petitioners. They maintain that the termination of the criminal proceedings would resolve a festering private dispute between the parties and enable them to pursue their life as law abiding citizens. According to the learned counsel, no purpose would be served in continuing with the criminal proceedings in view of the changed circumstances.
CRL.MC.NO.2235 OF 2018
4
records, it appears that the offences are entirely personal in nature and do not affect public peace or tranquility. It is also felt that quashing of proceedings on account of compromise would bring about peace. In a case such as the instant one, even if the prosecution is allowed to continue, it would not serve any purpose as the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak. It can only result in putting the victim and the accused to unwanted oppression and prejudice. Settlement will augur well for the interest of the community and will enable the parties to live in peace and harmony.
In the result, this petition is allowed. Annexure-3 final report and all further proceedings pursuant thereto against the petitioners now pending as C.C. No.1633 of 2016 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-III, Attingal are quashed.
SD/-
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V., JUDGE
//TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE
NS
CRL.MC.NO.2235 OF 2018
5
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S) ANNEXURES :
ANNEXURE A1 TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.1306/2015 OF CHIRAYINKEEZHU POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.
ANNEXURE A2 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN CRL.MC.NO.3370 OF 2016 DATED 06-06-2016.
ANNEXURE A3 TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CC 1633/2016 OF THE JFCM-III, ATTINGAL.
ANNEXURE A4 TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 16-032014.
ANNEXURE A5 TRUE COPY OF THE SUIT FILED AS O.S.NO.249/2015 BEFORE THE MUNISIFF COURT, ATTINGAL.
ANNEXURE A6 TRUE COPY OF THE NO OBJECTION CERTIFICATE DATED 03-12-2015.
RESPONDENT(S) ANNEXURES :NIL
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the criminal proceedings under Sections 405 and 420 IPC should be quashed due to an amicable resolution of the private dispute between the parties.
Whether Section 482 Cr.P.C. permits quashing of proceedings where the offence is personal in nature and no public interest is involved.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Gian Singh v. State of PunjabReferred¶31
[(2012) 10 SCC 303 · Who else cites this
Parbatbhai Aahir v. State of GujaratReferred¶31
[2017 (12) SCALE 187]
2 provisions across 2 enactments
SHAREEF
ANZI
STATE OF KERALA
SHINE
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
