Allowed

Sameer v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC7 Jul 2022Crl.MC/2063/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed a criminal miscellaneous petition to quash further proceedings in a complaint alleging offences under Sections 498 A and 34 IPC upon finding that the dispute was amicably settled by the parties and no purpose would be served in continuing the trial.

What did the court decide?

Crl.M.C. allowed and all further proceedings under Annexure 1 Final Report in Crime No.233/2019 of Palode Police Station quashed.

Sameer Vs State of Kerala — Domestic Violence | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 7^TH DAY OF JULY 2022 / 16TH ASHADHA, 1944

¶5

CRL.MC NO. 2063 OF 2022

¶6

CRIME NO.233/2019 OF Palode Police Station,

¶7

Thiruvananthapuram

¶8

PETITIONER/ACCUSED 1 TO 3:

¶9

1 SAMEER, AGED 28 YEARS S/O NAZARIDEEN, ARAFA MANZIL, DEECENT MUKKU, PERINGAMALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695536

¶10

2 SALMA,D/O SARAUMMA, AGED 48,ARAFA MANZIL, DEECENT MUKKU, PERINGAMALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695536

¶11

3 SAMEENA, AGED 30 YEARS, D/O SALMA, ARAFA MANZIL, DEECENT MUKKU, PERINGAMALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695536

¶12

BY ADV LIJU. M.P

¶13

RESPONDENTS/STATE AND DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:

¶14

1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031

¶15

2 NAFSIYA, AGED 24 YEARS, D/O NADEERA BEEVI, NAFSIYA MANZIL, THEVANPARA PO, THOLICODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695541

¶16

BY ADV VINOD KUMAR.C

¶17

SMT. T.V. NEEMA, SR. PP

¶18

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07.07.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

Crl.M.C.No.2063/2022

-:2:-

O R D E R

Dated this the 7^th day of July, 2022

¶23

This Crl.M.C. has been preferred to quash all further proceedings pursuant to Annexure 1 Final Report in Crime No.233/2019 of Palode Police Station on the ground of settlement between the parties.

¶24

The petitioners are the accused Nos. 1 to 3. The 2^nd respondent is the defacto complainant.

¶25

The offences alleged against the petitioners are punishable under Sections 498 A read with 34 of IPC.

¶26

The respondent No.2 entered appearance through counsel. An affidavit sworn in by her is also produced.

¶27

I have heard Sri. Liju M.P, the learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri. Vinod Kumar C., the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 and Smt. T.V. Neema, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor.

¶28

The averments in the petition as well as the affidavit sworn in by the respondent No.2 would show that the entire dispute between the parties has been amicably settled and the

¶29

Crl.M.C.No.2063/2022

¶30

-:3:-

¶31

de facto complainant has 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.

¶32

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.

¶33

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 1. The

¶34

Crl.M.C.No.2063/2022

¶35

-:4:-

¶36

offences in question do not fall within the category of offences prohibited for compounding in terms of the pronouncement of the Apex Court in Gian Singh (supra), Narinder Singh (supra) and Laxmi Narayan (supra).

¶37

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. All further proceedings pursuant to Annexure 1 Final Report in Crime No.233/2019 of Palode Police Station hereby stands quashed.

¶38

Sd/-

¶39

DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH

JUDGE

Crl.M.C.No.2063/2022

-:5:-

APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 2063/2022

¶45

PETITIONER ANNEXURES

¶46

Annexure1 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO.233/19 OF PALODE POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM Annexure2 ORIGINAL OF THE AFFIDAVIT DATED 22.02.2022 EXECUTED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT/ DEFACTO COMPLAINANT

Sameer v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sameer 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dinil G Vs Station House Officer

Sainudheen, C.NO.3006 Vs State of Kerala

Ansha Razaq Vs Shafeena

Muhammed Riswan Vs State of Kerala

Yyyy Vs State of Kerala

A.K.Nainan, Vs State of Kerala