Allowed

Illyas v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC6 Dec 2022Crl.MC/1717/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed a criminal miscellaneous petition seeking quashing of the final report in a criminal case under Sections 323, 341, 403, 498 IPC and 506(II). Relying on Supreme Court precedents regarding settlement of non-compoundable offences, the court held that quashing was warranted as the dispute was personal, parties settled amicably, and no public interest was affected.

What did the court decide?

The Crl.M.C. is allowed and Annexure A2 Final Report in C.C. No. 544/2016 is quashed.

Illyas Vs the State of Kerala — Quashing and FIR | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 6^TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2022 / 15TH AGRAHAYANA, 1944

¶5

CRL.MC NO. 1717 OF 2017

¶6

CRIME NO.607/2015 OF Badiadukka Police Station, Kasargod CC 544/2016 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I,KASARAGOD PETITIONER:

¶7

ILLYAS, AGED 36 YEARS, S/O. MUHAMMED KUNHI,PARAPPALLY HOUSE, PULLUR P.O.,PULLUR VILLAGE, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.T.K.VIPINDAS SRI.K.M.MUHAMMED HUSSAIN SRI.K.V.SREE VINAYAKAN, SRI.V.VISAL AJAYAN

¶9

RESPONDENTS/STATE & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:

¶10

1 THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM REPRESENTING S.H.O.,BADIADKA POLICE STATION.

¶11

2 HAJIRA K, AGED 22 YEARS, AGED 22 YEARS, D/O.K.A.IBRAHIM,RESIDING BARMINADUKKAM HOUSE,BALLA VILLAGE, KASARAGOD TALUK,KASARAGOD DISTRICT - 671 121.

¶12

SMT. T.V. NEEMA, SR. PP

¶13

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06.12.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

Crl.M.C.No.1717/2017

-:2:-

O R D E R

Dated this the 6^th day of December, 2022

¶18

This Crl.M.C. has been preferred to quash Annexure A2 Final Report in C.C.No.544/2016 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Kasaragod on the ground of settlement between the parties.

¶19

The petitioner is the accused. The 2^nd respondent is the defacto complainant.

¶20

The offences alleged against the petitioner are punishable under Sections 341, 323, 403, 506(ii) and 498 of IPC.

¶21

Annexure A4 is the agreement evidencing the settlement of the case between the petitioner and the 2^nd respondent.

¶22

I have heard Sri. T.K. Vipindas, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt. T.V. Neema, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor.

¶23

The averments in the petition as well as the Annexure A4 agreement would show that the entire dispute between the parties has been amicably settled and the de facto complainant has decided not to proceed with the criminal proceedings further.

¶24

Crl.M.C.No.1717/2017

¶25

-:3:-

¶26

The learned Prosecutor, on instruction, submits that the matter was enquired into through the investigating officer and a statement of the de facto complainant was also recorded wherein she reported that the matter was amicably settled.

¶27

The Apex Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab [2012 (4) KLT 108 (SC)], Narinder Singh and Others v. State of Punjab 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 by 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 the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of process of any Court.

¶28

The dispute in the above case is purely personal in nature. No public interest or harmony will be adversely affected by quashing the proceedings pursuant to Annexure A2. The offences in question do not fall within the category of offences prohibited for compounding in terms of the pronouncement of the

¶29

Crl.M.C.No.1717/2017

¶30

-:4:-

¶31

Apex Court in Gian Singh (supra), Narinder Singh (supra) and Laxmi Narayan (supra).

¶32

For the reasons stated above, I am of the view that no purpose will be served in proceeding with the matter any further. Accordingly, the Crl.M.C. is allowed. Annexure A2 Final Report in C.C.No.544/2016 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Kasaragod hereby stands quashed.

¶33

Sd/-

¶34

DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH

JUDGE

Crl.M.C.No.1717/2017

-:5:-

APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 1717/2017

¶40

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶41

ANNEXURE A1 TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO. 607/2015 OF BADIADKA POLICE STATION. ANNEXURE A2 TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO. 607/2015 OF BADIADKA POLICE STATION. ANNEXURE A3 TRE COPY OF THE THALAQ DATED 24.12.2015. ANNEXURE A4 TRUE COPY O THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND 2ND RESPONDNET DATED 24.12.2015.

Illyas v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Illyas v. the 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajesh Vs the Station House Officer

Unnikrishnan Vs State of Kerala

Raju, Vs State

Suresh Vs State of Kerala

Sneha C.S, Vs State of Kerala

K. Sivaramakrishnan Vs State of Kerala