Quashed

Siyar Manuraj v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC20 Jun 2019Crl.MC/611/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal miscellaneous matter, the Kerala High Court quashed criminal proceedings against the petitioner. The court observed that the dispute between the accused and the complainant was settled amicably, citing the affidavit of settlement. Relying on precedents, the court quashed the final report and further proceedings.

What did the court decide?

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

Siyar Manuraj Vs State of Kerala — Dowry and Cruelty | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF JUNE 2019 / 30TH JYAISHTA, 1941

¶5

Crl.MC.No.611 of 2019

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC 58/2013 of CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE ,THRISSUR

¶7

CRIME NO.1923/2012 OF Town West Police Station , Thrissur

¶8

PETITIONER/S:

¶9

SIYAR MANURAJ AGED 47 YEARS S/O.RAJU, KERALA STATE HOUSING BOARD, GREENVALI, FLAT NO.5/36, PULLAZHI P.O., THRISSUR.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.PREMCHAND M.

¶11

RESPONDENT/S:

¶12

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

¶13

2 VEENA, D/O.V.K.NANU, MARANGATTIL HOUSE, DURGANJALI, VADAKKUMMURI, PULLAZHI P.O., THRISSUR.

¶14

OTHER PRESENT:

¶15

SMT.PRIYA SHANAVAS, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR FOR R1, SMT.K.ANITHA JOHN FOR R2

¶16

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20.06.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.

¶18

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

¶19

Crl.M.C.No. 611 of 2019

¶20

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

¶21

Dated this the 20^th day of June, 2019

¶22

O R D E R

¶23

The petitioner herein is the accused in the impugned Anx.B

¶24

final report/charge sheet filed in Anx. A FIR in Crime No.1923/2012 of Thrissur Town West Police Station, registered for offences punishable under Secs.498A, 420, 506, & 509 of the I.P.C., 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.C 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.

¶25

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

¶26

Crl.M.C.611/19 - : 3 :-

¶27

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.

¶28

Accordingly, it is ordered in the interest of justice that the impugned Anx.B final report/charge sheet filed in Anx.A FIR in Crime No.1923/2012 of Thrissur Town West Police Station and all further proceedings arising therefrom pending against the accused

¶29

Crl.M.C.611/19 - : 4 :-

¶30

will stand quashed.

¶31

The petitioner 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.

¶32

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

¶33

sdk+

¶34

Sd/- ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE

¶35

Crl.M.C.611/19 - : 5 :-

¶36

APPENDIX

¶37

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶38

ANNEXURE-A	TRUE COPY	OF THE F	IR IN CRIME NO. 1923/2012 OF
	THRISSUR T	OWN WEST	POLICE STATION.
ANNEXURE-B	TRUE COPY	OF THE	FINAL REPORT SUBMITTED BY
	THRISSUR	POLICE	BEFORE THE CJM COURT,
	THRISSUR.
ANNEXURE-C	AFFIDAVIT	SWORN IN	BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

Siyar Manuraj v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Siyar Manuraj 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Leo George Vs State of Kerala

Muhammed Ashraf.K.K., Vs Afeefa.K.

Shanu @ Abdul Rahman Vs State of Kerala

Midhun Kumar Vs State of Kerala

Pushpakaran Vs the State of Kerala

Muhammed Basheer Vs Palakkavalappil Puthiyamaliyekkal Mariyambeevi