Allowed

Afeefa V.K v. the Station House Officer

Kerala HC14 Oct 2022Crl.MC/3536/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed a Criminal Miscellaneous petition to quash a Final Report in a criminal case involving Sections 323, 406, and 498A IPC. The crime was purely personal and parties settled amicably, warranting quash under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to prevent abuse of process and secure ends of justice.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Misc. Case allowed; Annexure-A1 Final Report in C.C.No.187/2021 quashed.

Afeefa V.K Vs the Station House Officer — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 14^TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2022 / 22ND ASWINA, 1944

¶5

CRL.MC NO. 3536 OF 2021

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENTCC 187/2021 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE

¶7

OF FIRST CLASS ,NILAMBUR

¶8

PETITIONERS/DE FACTO COMPLAINANT & ACCUSED 1 TO 5:

¶9

1 AFEEFA V.K AGED 23 YEARS

¶10

D/O BEERANKUTTY, VALLIKKADAN (H), ASPATHRIKUNNU, MAMBAD, NILAMBUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT

¶11

2 SHAMEER K, AGED 33 YEARS S/O BASHEER, KONTHRATH HOUSE, BARBARMUKKU, PERUVAMKULAM, EDAKKARA, NILAMBUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT

¶12

3 BASHEER, AGED 60 YEARS S/O KONTHRATH MUHAMMED, KONTHRATH HOUSE, BARBARMUKKU, PERUVAMKULAM, EDAKKARA, NILAMBUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT -679 331.

¶13

4 SAFIYA, AGED 56 YEARS W/O BASHEER, KONTHRATH HOUSE, BARBARMUKKU, PERUVAMKULAM, EDAKKARA, NILAMBUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT -679 331.

¶14

5 SHERENNA, AGED 36 YEARS D/O BASHEER, KONTHRATH HOUSE, BARBARMUKKU, PERUVAMKULAM, EDAKKARA, NILAMBUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT -679 331.

¶15

6 SHAFEEQUE, AGED 30 YEARS S/O BASHEER, KONTHRATH HOUSE, BARBARMUKKU, PERUVAMKULAM, EDAKKARA, NILAMBUR TALUK,

¶16

CRL.MC NO.3536 OF 2021

¶17

¶18

MALAPPURAM DISTRICT -679 331.

¶19

BY ADV SUNNY MATHEW

¶20

RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE:

¶21

1 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER EDAKKARA POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-679 331.

¶22

2 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031

¶23

OTHER PRESENT:

¶24

SRI P G MANU - SR PP

¶25

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14.10.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶26

¶27

CRL.MC NO.3536 OF 2021

¶28

O R D E R

¶29

This Crl.M.C. has been preferred to quash Annexure-A1

¶30

Final Report in C.C.No.187 of 2021 on the file of the

¶31

Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Nilambur on the ground of settlement between the parties.

¶32

The 1^st petitioner is the de facto complainant. The petitioners 2 to 6 are the accused.

¶33

The offences alleged against the petitioners are punishable under Sections 323, 406, 498A r/w Section 34 of IPC.

¶34

The 1^st petitioner entered appearance through counsel. An affidavit sworn in by her is also produced.

¶35

I have heard Sri.Sunny Mathew, the learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri.P.G.Manu, the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶36

The averments in the petition as well as the affidavit sworn in by the 1^st petitioner would show that the entire dispute between the parties has been amicably

¶37

¶38

CRL.MC NO.3536 OF 2021

¶39

settled and the de facto complainant has decided not to

¶40

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.

¶41

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

¶42

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

¶43

¶44

CRL.MC NO.3536 OF 2021

¶45

abuse of process of any Court.

¶46

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 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).

¶47

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-A1 Final Report in C.C.No.187 of 2021 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Nilambur hereby stands quashed.

¶48

Sd/-

¶49

DR.KAUSER EDAPPAGATH, JUDGE

¶50

¶51

CRL.MC NO.3536 OF 2021

¶52

¶53

APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 3536/2021

¶54

PETITIONERS' ANNEXURES:

¶55

ANNEXURE A1 A TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT DATED 21.1.2021 IN CC NO 187/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, NILAMBUR ANNEXURE A2 A TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN TO BY THE 1ST PETITIONER

Afeefa V.K v. the Station House Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Afeefa V.K v. the Station House Officer

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

Dr Javed Muhammed Vs State of Kerala

Arunkumar Vs State of Kerala

Shaji.K.M Vs State of Kerala

Vipinsad Vs the State of Kerala Represented by the Public Prosecutor

Mini Haris Vs Hanna Haris

Sarath Sasi Vs State of Kerala