Allowed

Asif Nazeer v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC13 Jul 2022Crl.MC/2368/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court allowed a criminal miscellaneous petition to quash an FIR registered under Section 498A IPC. Finding the dispute settled amicably, the court held no purpose would be served by further proceedings and quashed the First Information Report citing Supreme Court precedents.

What did the court decide?

The Crl.M.C. is allowed and Annexure II FIR in Crime No.12/2022 of Kottiyam Police Station is quashed.

Asif Nazeer Vs State of Kerala — Dowry and Cruelty | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

CRL.MC NO. 2368 OF 2022

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH WEDNESDAY, THE 13^TH DAY OF JULY 2022 / 22ND ASHADHA, 1944

¶6

CRL.MC NO. 2368 OF 2022

¶7

CRIME NO.12/2022 OF Kottiyam Police Station, Kollam

¶8

PETITIONERS/ACCISED:

¶9

1 ASIF NAZEER, AGED 38 YEARS S/O.NAZEER, CHENKARA MANGAD, ELIPPAKULAM, KATTANAM VILLAGE, MAVELIKKARA TALUK, ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 690503

¶10

2 N. NAZEER, AGED 60 YEARS S/O.M.NURUDHEEN, CHENKARA MANGAD, ELIPPAKULAM, KATTANAM VILLAGE, MAVELIKKARA TALUK, ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 690503

¶11

3 ADABIYA NAZEER, AGED 59 YEARS W/O.N.NASEER, CHENKARA MANGAD, ELIPPAKULAM, KATTANAM VILLAGE, MAVELIKKARA TALUK, ALAPPUZHA , PIN - 690503

¶12

BY ADV PRIYA SHANAVAS

¶13

RESPONDENTS:

¶14

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

¶15

2 NEETHUSHA, AGED 33 YEARS D/O.SHAJIHAAN, KAIKKARA, KOTTIYAM P.O., KOLLAM, PIN - 691571 R1 BY SRI.SANGEETHA RAJ – PUBLIC PROSECUTOR R2 BY ADV BIJITH S KHAN SHANAVAS

¶16

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
13.07.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

¶18

CRL.MC NO. 2368 OF 2022

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

This Crl.M.C. has been preferred to quash Annexure II FIR in Crime No.12/2022 of Kottiyam Police Station on the ground of settlement between the parties.

¶21

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

¶22

The offence alleged against the petitioners is punishable under Section 498A of IPC.

¶23

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

¶24

I have heard Sri.Priya Shanavas, the learned counsel for

¶25

the petitioners, Sri.Bijith S.Khan, the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 and Sri.Sangeetha Raj, the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶26

The averments in the petition as well as the affidavit sworn in by the respondent No.2 would show that the entire dispute

¶27

CRL.MC NO. 2368 OF 20223

¶28

between the parties has been amicably settled and the 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.

¶29

The Apex Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab [2012

¶30

(4) KLT 108 (SC)], Narinder Singh and Others v. State of Punjab

¶31

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.

¶32

The dispute in the above case is purely personal in

¶33

CRL.MC NO. 2368 OF 2022

¶34

¶35

nature. No public interest or harmony will be adversely affected by quashing the proceedings pursuant to Annexure II FIR. The offence in question does not fall within the category of offences prohibited for compounding in terms of the pronouncement of the Apex Court

¶36

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. Annexure II FIR in Crime No.12/2022 of Kottiyam Police Station hereby stands quashed.

¶38

Sd/-

¶39

DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH

¶40

JUDGE

¶41

¶42

CRL.MC NO. 2368 OF 2022

¶43

¶44

APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 2368/2022

¶45

`PETITIONER ANNEX`	`URES`
`Annexure I`	`THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIRST` `INFORMATION STATEMENT DATED 02.01.2022` `GIVEN BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT/ DE FACTO` `COMPLAINANT BEFORE THE KOTTIYAM POLICE` `STATION, KOLLAM CITY`
`Annexure II`	`THE CERTIFIED COPY OF FIR NO. 12/2022 OF` `THE KOTTIYAM POLICE STATION, KOLLAM CITY`
`Annexure III`	`THE TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF` `AGREEMENT DATED 19.03.2022 UNDER SECTION` `89 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE,1908,` `READ WITH RULES 24 AND 25 OF THE CIVIL` `PROCEDURE (MEDIATION) RULES, 2005,` `BETWEEN THE PETITIONERS AND THE 2ND` `RESPONDENT/ DE FACTO COMPLAINANT`
`Annexure IV`	`THE AFFIDAVIT DATED 02.04.2022, EXECUTED` `BY RESPONDENT NO.2/ THE DE FACTO` `COMPLAINANT FOR CONSENTING TO QUASH` `ANNEXURE II FIR`

¶46

RESPONDENTS ANNEXURES: NIL

Asif Nazeer v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Asif Nazeer 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

Muhammed Riswan Vs State of Kerala

Yyyy Vs State of Kerala

Sameer Vs State of Kerala

Thayyullathil Ratheesan Vs Moothattil Sreedharan

Rupesh Vs Ambily

Abdul Azeez Vs State of Kerala