Allowed

Muhammed Basheer v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC22 Nov 2021Crl.MC/3703/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail petition seeking quashment of proceedings under Sections 498A and 406 IPC, the court observed that matrimonial issues had been settled amicably. It found that the parties were living together and continued proceedings would amount to an abuse of process, consequently allowing the petition and quashing the criminal case.

What did the court decide?

The entire further proceedings against the petitioners in Crime No. 1026/2014 of Pattambi Police Station were quashed.

Muhammed Basheer Vs State of Kerala — Dowry and Cruelty | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.R.ANITHA

¶4

MONDAY, THE 22^ND DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021 / 1ST AGRAHAYANA, 1943

¶5

CRL.MC NO. 3703 OF 2021

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC 779/2015 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS

¶7

MAGISTRATE COURT, PATTAMBI IN CRIME NO. 1026/2014 OF PATTAMBI

¶8

POLICE STATION.

¶9

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS. 1 TO 5:

¶10

1 MUHAMMED BASHEER AGED 35 YEARS S/O. MUHAMMED KUTTY (LATE), PARAKKAL HOUSE, (POST) PALLOM, THALAPPILLY TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶11

2 SULIKHA AGED 76 YEARS

¶12

W/O. LATE MUHAMMED KUTTY, PARAKKAL HOUSE, (POST) PALLOM, THALAPPILLY TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶13

3 JAMEELA AGED 51 YEARS D/O. LATE MUHAMMED KUTTY, PARAKKAL HOUSE, (POST) PALLOM, THALAPPILLY TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶14

4 SUBAIDA AGED 46 YEARS D/O. LATE MUHAMMED KUTTY, PARAKKAL HOUSE, (POST) PALLOM, THALAPPILLY TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶15

5 KADEEJA AGED 42 YEARS D/O. LATE MUHAMMED KUTTY, PARAKKAL HOUSE, (POST) PALLOM, THALAPPILLY TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶16

BY ADV M.DEVESH

¶17

RESPONDENTS/STATE AND DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:

¶18

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682 031.

¶19

2 SHAHEENA AGED 27 YEARS D/O. HAMSA, PARAMBIL VEETTIL HOUSE, NETHIRIMANGALAM AMSOM, KIZHAYUR DESOM, POST KIZHAYUR, (VIA) PATTAMBI,

¶20

Crl.M.C. NO. 3703 OF 2021

¶21

¶22

PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 679303.

¶23

BY ADV P.K.MOHANAN(PALAKKAD)

¶24

PP SANGEETHARAJ.NR

¶25

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON

¶26

22.11.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶27

Crl.M.C. NO. 3703 OF 2021

¶28

¶29

ORDER

¶30

Petitioners are accused Nos. 1 to 5 in Crime No. 1026/2014 of Patttambi Police Station, which has been registered for the offence punishable under Sections 498A, 406 r/w 34 of IPC. This Crl.M.C has been filed seeking to quash the entire further proceedings against the petitioners in the above said crime.

¶31

2^nd respondent is the wife of the 1^st petitioner and other petitioners are in-laws of the defacto complainant/2nd respondent.

¶32

The matrimonial issues between the petitioners and the defacto complainant/2nd respondent have been amicably settled out of court. Annexure A1 is the copy of the private complainant filed by the 2^nd respondent/defacto complainant. Annexure 2 is the registered copy of the FIR registered in pursuance of Annexure 1 complaint. Annexure 3 is the copy of the final report in the above said crime. Annexure 4 is the affidavit duly sworn in bye the defacto complainant.

¶33

Adv. P.K.Mohanan appeared on behalf of the defacto complainant/2nd respondent and reports about the settlement arrived at between the parties. The learned Public Prosecutor filed the copy of the report of the Station House Officer, Pattambi police station along with the signed statement of the defacto complainant/2nd respondent.

¶34

It has come out from the affidavit duly sworn in by the

¶35

Crl.M.C. NO. 3703 OF 2021

¶36

¶37

defacto complainant as well as from the statement given to the Station House Officer, Pattambi Police Station that she is not intending to prosecute the matter further against the petitioners and now they are living together. She also has no objection in quashing the proceedings against the petitioners.

¶38

Since the entire issues between the parties have been settled out of court, continuation of proceedings against the petitioners would be an abuse of process of court.

¶39

In the result, Crl.M.C allowed. The entire further proceedings against the petitioners in Crime No. No. 1026/2014 of Patttambi Police Station is hereby quashed. SD/-

¶40

M.R.ANITHA JUDGE

¶41

rps/

¶42

Crl.M.C. NO. 3703 OF 2021

¶43

¶44

APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 3703/2021

¶45

PETITIONER ANNEXURE

¶46

Annexure 1	TRUE COPY OF THE PRIVATE COMPLAINT DATED 25.10.2014 FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT AGAINST THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE J.F.C.M., PATTAMBI.
Annexure 2	COPY OF THE FIR IN PATTAMBI POLICE STATION CRIME 1026/2014 DATED 28.10.2014.
Annexure 3	CERTIFIED COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE FINAL REPORT OF PATTAMBI POLICE IN PATTAMBI POLICE STATION CRIME 1026/2014 DATED 20.12.2014.
Annexure 4	THE AFFIDAVIT DATED 09.08.2021 SWORN BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT/DE FACTO COMPLAINANT.

Muhammed Basheer v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Muhammed Basheer 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jamsheer, Vs the State of Kerala

Kurien Jose Vs State of Kerala

Gokul Divakar @ Nikhil Vs State of Kerala

Shijin Vs State of Kerala

Aneesh Vs the State of Kerala

Antony Peter, Vs State of Kerala