The Kerala High Court quashd criminal proceedings instituted under Section 498A IPC following an affidavit from the complainant stating an amicable settlement was reached, citing Supreme Court precedents.
Impugned final report, charge sheet, and all further proceedings in the criminal case stand 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 ALEXANDER THOMAS
WEDNESDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF JUNE 2019 / 29TH JYAISHTA, 1941
Crl.MC.No.847 of 2019
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC 1197/2017 of JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -II, KANNUR
CRIME NO.817/2017 OF Valappatanam Police Station , Kannur
PETITIONER/S:
MUHAMMED ASHRAF.K.K., AGED 33 YEARS, S/O.ABDUL FATHAH, RESIDING AT KANDOTH KATTYAKALANTAKATH, PAPPINISSERI AMSOM, AROLI DESOM, KANNUR.
BY ADV. SRI.C.K.SREEJITH
RESPONDENT/S:
1 AFEEFA.K., AGED 28 YEARS, D/O.FAROOQUE, AKBAR MANZIL, KANNUR AMSOM, NEERCHAL DESOM, KANNUR670003.
2 S.I OF POLICE, BALIAPATTAM POLICE STATION, KANNUR DIST.-670561.
3 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031.
BY ADV. SMT.MARY RANZOM LOUIZ FOR R1
OTHER PRESENT:
SMT.PRIYA SHANAVAS, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR FOR R2 AND R3
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19.06.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.
==================
Crl.M.C.No. 847 of 2019 ================== Dated this the 19th day of June, 2019
O R D E R
The petitioner herein is the accused in the impugned Anx. A-2 final report/charge sheet filed in Crime No. 817/2017 on the file of the Baliapattam Station, registered for offences punishable under Sec.498A of the I.P.C., which has led to the institution of C.C.No. 1197/2017 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Kannur, on the basis of the complaint of the 1st respondent defacto complainant. It is stated that now the entire disputes between the petitioner and the 1st respondent defacto complainant have been settled amicably and that the 1st respondent has sworn to Anx. A-3 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.
Crl.M.C.847/19 - : 3 :-
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 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.
Crl.M.C.847/19 - : 4 :-
institution of C.C.No. 1197/2017 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Kannur and all further proceedings arising therefrom pending against the accused will stand quashed.
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.
With these observations and directions, the above Criminal Miscellaneous Case stands finally disposed of.
sdk+
Sd/- ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE
Crl.M.C.847/19 - : 5 :-
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
| ANNEXURE A1 | THE CERTIFIED COP NO.817/2017 ON THE STATION, KANNUR DIS |
Y OF THE FIR IN CRIME FILE OF BALIAPATTAM POLICE T. |
|---|---|---|
| ANNEXURE A2 | THE CERTIFIED COPY FILED BEFORE THE JU COURT, KANNUR. |
OF THE FINAL REPORT WAS DICIAL 1ST CLASS MAGISTRATE |
| ANNEXURE A3 | THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN FACTO COMPLAINANT. |
BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT/DE- |
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the criminal proceedings under Section 498A IPC should be quashed following a settlement between parties.
Whether Section 482 CrPC empowers the High Court to quash proceedings where the dispute is amicably settled.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Gian Singh v. State of PunjabApplied¶26
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab reported in 2013 (1) SCC (Cri) 160 = (2012) 10 SCC 303 · Who else cites this
Narinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and anr.Applied¶26
Narinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and anr. reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
MUHAMMED ASHRAF.K.K.
AFEEFA.K.
S.I OF POLICE
STATE OF KERALA
ALEXANDER THOMAS
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
