Allowed

Chokkuvinte Ahammed v. Chokkuvinte Kunhamina Umma

Kerala HC13 Dec 2022Crl.MC/1880/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a criminal miscellaneous petition to quash proceedings in C.C.No.200/2019 for IPC offences. The court held that since the dispute was personal and amicably settled, no purpose would be served in continuing proceedings, citing Supreme Court precedents on quashing non-compoundable offences upon settlement.

What did the court decide?

Criminal M.C. No.1880/2020 allowed; All further proceedings in C.C.No.200/2019 quashed.

Chokkuvinte Ahammed Vs Chokkuvinte Kunhamina Umma — Writ and Judicial Review | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 13^TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2022 / 22ND AGRAHAYANA,

¶5

1944

¶6

CRL.MC NO. 1880 OF 2020

¶7

CRIME NO.1498/2018 OF PAYYANNUR POLICE STATION, KANNUR

¶8

CC 200/2019 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT,

¶9

PAYYANNUR

¶10

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO.1 TO 3:

¶11

1 CHOKKUVINTE AHAMMED AGED 69 YEARS

¶12

S/O.ABDULLA, C.V.HOUSE, KOVVAPPURAM, CHERUKUNNU, CHERUKUNNU P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT-670301.

¶13

2 CHOKKUVINTE ABOOBAKKER, AGED 56 YEARS S/O.ABDULLA, E.M.P.HOUSE, KAVVAYI, PAYYANNUR AMSOM, PAYYANNUR THALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT-670307.

¶14

3 SHAMEEM E.M.P, AGED 29 YEARS S/O.ABBOBAKKER, E.M.P.HOUSE, KAVVAYI, PAYYANNUR AMSOM, PAYYANNUR THALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT-670307.

¶15

BY ADVS. P.S.BINU ZUBAIR PULIKKOOL

¶16

RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT:

¶17

1 CHOKKUVINTE KUNHAMINA UMMA, AGED 70 YEARS, D/O.LATE ABDULLA, RABIAS, MANOKKI ROAD, PILATHARA P.O., CHERUTHAZHAM AMSOM DESOM, PAYYANNUR TALUK, KANNUR-670501.

¶18

CRL.MC NO. 1880 OF 2020

¶19

¶20

2 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031. BY ADVS. SMT.K.SEENA SRI.P.G.MANU, SR.P.P

¶21

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13.12.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

¶23

CRL.MC NO. 1880 OF 2020

¶24

O R D E R

¶25

This Crl.M.C. has been preferred to quash all further proceedings in C.C.No.200/2019 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Payyannur.

¶26

2 . During the pendency of the above Crl.M.C., the matter has been settled between the parties.

¶27

The petitioners are the accused Nos.1 to 3. The 1^st respondent is the de facto complainant.

¶28

The offences alleged against the petitioners are punishable under Sections 120B, 426, 465, 468 r/w 34 of IPC.

¶29

The 1^st respondent entered appearance through counsel. Affidavit sworn in by her is also produced.

¶30

I have heard Sri.Binu P.S., the learned counsel for the petitioners, Smt.K.Seena, the learned counsel for the 1^st respondent and Sri.P.G.Manu, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor.

¶31

The averments in the petition as well as the affidavit sworn in by the 1^st respondent would show that the entire dispute between the parties has been amicably settled and the de facto complainant has

¶32

¶33

CRL.MC NO. 1880 OF 2020

¶34

decided not to proceed with the criminal proceedings further. 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.

¶35

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.

¶36

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-III. The offences in question do not fall within the category of offences prohibited for compounding in

¶37

¶38

CRL.MC NO. 1880 OF 2020

¶39

terms of the pronouncement of the Apex Court in Gian Singh (supra), Narinder Singh (supra) and Laxmi Narayan (supra).

¶40

For the reasons stated above, I am of the view that no purpose will

¶41

be served in proceeding with the matter any further. Accordingly, the Crl.M.C. is allowed. All further proceedings in C.C.No.200/2019 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Payyannur hereby stands quashed.

¶42

Sd/- DR.KAUSER EDAPPAGATH, JUDGE

¶43

¶44

CRL.MC NO. 1880 OF 2020

¶45

¶46

APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 1880/2020

¶47

PETITIONERS' ANNEXURES:

¶48

ANNEXURE I	COPY OF FIR IN CRIME NO.1498/2018 OF PAYYANNUR POLICE STATION DATED 19.12.2018.
ANNEXURE II	COPY OF COMPLAINT FILED BEFORE THE JFCM COURT, PAYYANNUR BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 18.12.2018.
ANNEXURE III	COPY OF FIR IN CHARGE SHEET IN CRIME 1498/18 OF PAYYANNUR POLICE STATION DATED 12.02.2019.
ANNEXURE IV	COPY OF PARTITION DEED NO.504/2007 OF S.R.O PAYYANNUR DATED 07.02.2007.
ANNEXURE V	COPY OF RELEASE DEED NO.2919/2018 OF S.R.O PAYYANNUR DATED 11.09.2018.
ANNEXURE VI	COPY OF RELEASE DEED NO.2920/2018 OF S.R.O PAYYANNUR DATED 11.09.2018.
ANNEXURE VII	COPY OF PLAINT FILED IN O.S.NO.200/2018 BEFORE THE MUNSIFF COURT, PAYYANNUR DATED 17.12.2018.
ANNEXURE VIII	SWORN AFFIDAVIT OF 1^STRESPONDENT.

Chokkuvinte Ahammed v. Chokkuvinte Kunhamina Umma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chokkuvinte Ahammed v. Chokkuvinte Kunhamina Umma

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

Rajan P M Vs Sub Inspector of Police

Vishnu.U.B. Vs State of Kerala

Nias Marikkar, Vs State of Kerala

Ali Kadavandi Vs State of Kerala

Sreedevi Vs Principal Secretary

Ayoob Vs State of Kerala