The High Court of Kerala allowed a criminal miscellaneous case to quash the Final Report in a criminal proceeding involving offences under the IPC. The court held that since the dispute was personal and amicably settled, proceeding further would serve no purpose.
The Crl.M.C. is allowed and the Annexure A2 Final Report in Crime No.122/2019 stands 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 DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
MONDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF APRIL 2022 / 14TH CHAITHRA, 1944
CRL.MC NO. 116 OF 2022
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC 392/2019 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS
MAGISTRATE COURT-II,PERINTHALMANNA
CRIME NO.122/2019 OF MELATTUR POLICE STATION
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
SHAHEER HASHIM, AGED 31 YEARS S/O.SHAMSUDEEN, KALIANKUNNAN HOUSE, PERINTHALMANNA P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-679 322.
BY ADV P.SAMSUDIN
RESPONDENTS/STATE AND DE-FACTO COMPLAINANT:
1 THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031. (IN CRIME NO.122/2019 OF MELATTUR POLICE STATION).
2 BUSHRA, AGED 44 YEARS W/O.SALEEM, KODUVAYAKKAL HOUSE, KARUVAMPARA, PATTIKKAD P.O., PIN-679 325, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.
BY ADV SHYAM NAIR
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI M P PRASANTH-PP
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04.04.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
CRL.MC NO. 116 OF 2022
2
ORDER
This Crl.M.C. has been preferred to quash Annexure A2 Final Report in Crime No.122/2019 of Melattur Police Station on the ground of settlement between the parties.
3
CRL.MC NO. 116 OF 2022
and Others [(2014) 6 SCC 466] and in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan and Others [(2019) 5 SCC 688] has held that the High Court invoking S.482 of Cr.P.C can quash criminal proceedings in relation to non compoundable offence where the parties have settled the matter between themselves notwithstanding the bar under S.320 of Cr.P.C. if it is warranted in the given facts and circumstances of the case or to ensure ends of justice or to prevent abuse of process of any Court.
For the reasons stated above, I am of the view that no purpose will be served in proceeding with the matter further. Accordingly, the Crl.M.C. is allowed. Annexure A2 Final Report in Crime No.122/2019 of Melattur Police Station stands hereby quashed.
Sd/-
DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
JUDGE
bng
CRL.MC NO. 116 OF 2022
4
APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 116/2022
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A1 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.122/2019 OF MELATTUR POLICE STATION. Annexure A2 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO.122/2019 OF MELATTUR POLICE STATION. Annexure A3 THE ORIGINAL AFFIDAVIT DATED 19.12.2021 SWORN IN BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether criminal proceedings under non-compoundable offences should be quashed upon settlement between parties in a personal dispute.
Whether quashing the proceedings serves the purpose of justice and prevents abuse of process in a settled personal dispute.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Gian Singh v. State of PunjabReferred
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab [2012 (4) KLT 108 (SC)]
Narinder Singh and Others v. State of PunjabReferred
Narinder Singh and Others v. State of Punjab [(2014) 6 SCC 466] · Who else cites this
State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan and OthersReferred
State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan and Others [(2019) 5 SCC 688] · Who else cites this
3 provisions across 2 enactments
SHAHEER HASHIM
STATE OF KERALA
BUSHRA
KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
