Allowed

Usama v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC17 Oct 2022Crl.MC/2782/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Special Public Prosecutor moved to oppose the quashment of proceedings against petitioners in a domestic dispute alleged under Section 498A IPC. The High Court, finding the matter amicably settled and purely personal, held that no purpose would be served by further prosecution. Consequently, the petition was allowed and the criminal proceedings were quashed.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is allowed and all further proceedings pursuant to Annexure A1 FIR in Crime No.140/2022 are quashed.

Usama Vs 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

MONDAY, THE 17^TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2022 / 25TH ASWINA, 1944

¶5

CRL.MC NO. 2782 OF 2022

¶6

CRIME NO.140/2022 OF Kannapuram Police Station, Kannur PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS. 1 TO 5:

¶7

1 USAMA, AGED 34 YEARS S/O MOOSANKUTTY, RESIDING AT SAID NAGAR, USAMA MANZIL, THALIPARAMBA.P.O, THALIPARAMBA TALUK, KANNUR, PIN - 670141

¶8

2 SULAIKHA, AGED 59 YEARS W/O MOOSANKUTTY RESIDING AT SAID NAGAR, USAMA MANZIL, THALIPARAMBA.P.O, THALIPARAMBA TALUK, KANNUR, PIN - 670141 3 SHIHAB, AGED 41 YEARS S/O MOOSANKUTTY, RESIDING AT SAID NAGAR, USAMA MANZIL, THALIPARAMBA.P.O, THALIPARAMBA TALUK, KANNUR, PIN - 670141 4 FOUSIYA, AGED 38 YEARS D/O MOOSANKUTTY, RESIDING AT SAID NAGAR, USAMA MANZIL, THALIPARAMBA.P.O, THALIPARAMBA TALUK, KANNUR, PIN - 670141 5 ILLIYAS AGED 46 YEARS H/O FOUSIYA, RESIDING AT SAID NAGAR, USAMA MANZIL, THALIPARAMBA.P.O, THALIPARAMBA TALUK, KANNUR, PIN - 670141

¶9

Crl.M.C.No.2782/2022

¶10

-:2:-

¶11

BY ADV K.RAJESH SUKUMARAN

¶12

RESPONDENTS/ACCUSED NOS. 1 TO 5:

¶13

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

¶14

2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER KANNAPURAM POLICE STATION, P.O.KANNAPURAM, KANNUR-670301

¶15

3 RAMZEENA RAMZAN AGED 27 YEARS D/O RAMZAN, RESIDING AT KHAIRU VILLA, NEAR CONVENT HOSPITAL, CHERUKUNNUTHARA, P.O. KANNAPURAM, KANNUR, PIN - 670301

¶16

BY ADV R.SREEHARI SRI. P.G. MANU, SR.PP

¶17

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17.10.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

Crl.M.C.No.2782/2022

-:3:-

O R D E R

Dated this the 17^th day of October, 2022

¶22

This Crl.M.C. has been preferred to quash all further proceedings pursuant to Annexure A1 FIR in Crime No.140/2022

¶23

of Kannapuram Police Station, Kannur on the ground of settlement between the parties.

¶24

The petitioners are the accused Nos. 1 to 5. The 3^rd respondent is the defacto complainant.

¶25

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

¶26

The respondent No.3 entered appearance through counsel. An affidavit sworn in by her is also produced.

¶27

I have heard Sri. Rajesh Sukumaran, the learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri. R. Sreehari, the learned counsel for the respondent No.3 and Sri. P.G. Manu, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor.

¶28

The averments in the petition as well as the affidavit sworn in by the respondent No.3 would show that the entire dispute between the parties has been amicably settled and the

¶29

Crl.M.C.No.2782/2022

¶30

-:4:-

¶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 A1. The

¶34

Crl.M.C.No.2782/2022

¶35

-:5:-

¶36

offences in question do not fall within the category of offences prohibited for compounding in terms of the pronouncement of the

¶37

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

¶38

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 A1 FIR in Crime No.140/2022 of Kannapuram Police Station, Kannur hereby stands quashed.

¶39

Sd/-

¶40

DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH

JUDGE

Crl.M.C.No.2782/2022

-:6:-

APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 2782/2022

¶46

PETITIONER ANNEXURES

¶47

Annexure 1 SERVED TRUE COPY OF THE FIRST INFORMATION REPORT IN CRIME NO. 140/2022 OF KANNAPURAM POLICE STATION Annexure 2 COPY OF THE MUBARAT AGREEMENT DATED 12.04.2022 ENTERED INTO BETWEEN THE 1ST PETITIONER AND THE 3RD RESPONDENT Annexure 3 TRUE SWORN AFFIDAVIT DATED 25.04.2022 EXECUTED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT

Usama v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Usama 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

Afeefa V.K Vs the Station House Officer

Vipinsad Vs the State of Kerala Represented by the Public Prosecutor

Mini Haris Vs Hanna Haris

Aakash Simon Mohan, Vs State of Kerala

Jahangeer P.T Vs State of Kerala

Binu Krishnan Vs State of Kerala