Allowed

Nishadudeen v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC18 Jul 2022Crl.MC/341/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court allowed a criminal miscellaneous petition to quash further criminal proceedings in a matrimonial dispute. Based on a settlement between the parties and the final report, the court held that no purpose would be served by continuing the trial.

What did the court decide?

Crl.M.C. No.341/2022 allowed and further proceedings pursuant to Annexure A1 Final Report in Crime No.1081/2019 quashed.

Nishadudeen Vs State of Kerala — Kerala HC (2022) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH

¶4

MONDAY, THE 18^TH DAY OF JULY 2022 / 27TH ASHADHA, 1944

¶5

CRL.MC NO. 341 OF 2022

¶6

CRIME NO.1081/2019 OF Punalur Police Station, Kollam CC 146/2021 OF JFCM -I, PATHANAPURAM

¶7

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 & 2:

¶8

1 NISHADUDEEN,AGED 31 YEARS, S/O.ABDUL AZEEZ, RESIDING AT CHARUVILA PUTHEN VEEDU, KARYARA, VILAKUDI VILLAGE, PUNALUR TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 691 508.

¶9

2 ABDUL AZEEZ, AGED 69 YEARS, S/O.PICHA RAVUTHAR, RESIDING AT CHARUVILA PUTHEN VEEDU, KARYARA, VILAKUDI VILLAGE, PUNALUR TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 691 508.

¶10

BY ADVS.J.R.PREM NAVAZ SUMEEN S.

¶11

RESPONDENTS:

¶12

1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN -682 031.

¶13

2 NISHANA, AGED 24 YEARS, D/O.PARISHA, RESIDING AT PALAMOOTTIL VEEDU, PATHIRIKKAL P.O., PUNALUR VILLAGE, PUNALUR TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 689 695.

¶14

BY ADV AJOY VENU SMT. T.V. NEEMA, SR.PP

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18.07.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

Crl.M.C.No.341/2022

-:2:-

O R D E R

Dated this the 18^th day of July, 2022

¶20

This Crl.M.C. has been preferred to quash further proceedings pursuant to Annexure A1 Final Report in Crime No.1081/2019 of Punalur Police Station on the ground of settlement between the parties.

¶21

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

¶22

The offences alleged against the petitioners are punishable under Sections 498 A read with 34 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. J.R. Prem Navaz, the learned counsel

¶25

for the petitioners, Sri. Ajoy Venu, the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 and Smt. T.V. Neema, the learned Senior 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 between the parties has been amicably settled and the

¶27

Crl.M.C.No.341/2022

¶28

-:3:-

¶29

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.

¶30

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.

¶31

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

¶32

Crl.M.C.No.341/2022

¶33

-:4:-

¶34

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

¶35

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

¶36

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. Further proceedings pursuant

¶37

to Annexure A1 Final Report in Crime No.1081/2019 of Punalur Police Station hereby stands quashed.

¶38

Sd/-

¶39

DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH

JUDGE

Crl.M.C.No.341/2022

-:5:-

APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 341/2022

¶45

PETITIONER ANNEXURES

¶46

Annexure A1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT/CHARGE SHEET IN CRIME NO.1081 OF 2019 OF PUNALUR POLICE STATION, KOLLAM DISTRICT.

¶47

Annexure A2 THE AFFIDAVIT SOLEMNLY AFFIRMED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT.

Nishadudeen v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nishadudeen v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Babu, Vs State of Kerala

Gunseela Vs State of Kerala

Jahfer Sadiq E.A. Vs Marwa

Sreedharan, C.NO.1752 Vs State of Kerala

Sasi, C NO.1965, Central Prison, Thiruvananthapuram Vs State of Kerala

Krishna P Mohan Vs Praveen K P