High Court allowed Criminal Miscellaneous Case to quash the Final Report in the pending criminal proceedings. The court relied on Supreme Court precedents regarding settlement in matrimonial disputes and held that quashing was warranted in the facts of the case.
Crl.M.C. No.3696 of 2022 allowed; Annexure-2 Final Report in C.C.No.780 of 2017 quashed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
FRIDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF OCTOBER 2022 / 29TH ASWINA, 1944
CRL.MC NO. 3696 OF 2022
CRIME NO.129/2017 OF THIRURANGADI POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM CC 780/2017 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,
PARAPPANANGADI
PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 TO 5:
1 HAMSA
AGED 35 YEARS
S/O KHALID HAJI, KUZHIYANCHERI HOUSE, A.R. NAGAR, TIRURANGADI PO, MALAPPURAM, PIN - 676306
2 FATHIMA
AGED 56 YEARS
W/O KHALID HAJI, KUZHIYANCHERI HOUSE, A.R. NAGAR, TIRURANGADI PO, MALAPPURAM, PIN - 676306
3 KAMARUNNISA
AGED 37 YEARS
D/O KHALID HAJI,KUZHIYANCHERI HOUSE, A.R. NAGAR, TIRURANGADI PO, MALAPPURAM, PIN - 676306
4 AFZAL AGED 23 YEARS
S/O KHALID HAJI, KUZHIYANCHERI HOUSE, A.R. NAGAR, TIRURANGADI PO, MALAPPURAM, PIN - 676306
5 SIDDIQUE
AGED 29 YEARS
S/O KHALID HAJI, KUZHIYANCHERI HOUSE, A.R. NAGAR, TIRURANGADI PO, MALAPPURAM, PIN - 676306
BY ADV M.DEVESH
CRL.MC NO. 3696 OF 2022
2
RESPONDENTS/STATE AND DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:
| 1 | STATE OF KERALA |
|---|---|
| REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, | |
| HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031 | |
| 2 | SHAKKEELA |
| AGED 30 YEARS | |
| D/O. MECHERI ASHRAF, MECHERI HOUSE, | |
| PAKADAPURAYA, KANNATTIPPADI, | |
| MALAPPURAM , PIN - 676306 |
BY ADV THAREEQ ANVER K., SRI.P.G.MANU, SR.P.P.
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21.10.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
3
CRL.MC NO. 3696 OF 2022
O R D E R
This Crl.M.C. has been preferred to quash
Annexure-2 Final Report in C.C.No.780 of 2017 on the file
of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court,
Parappanangadi on the ground of settlement between the parties.
punishable under Sections 406, 498A, 323, 313, 294(b) r/w 34 of I.P.C.
counsel. An affidavit sworn in by her is also produced.
for the petitioners, Sri.Thareeq Anver K., the learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent and Sri.P.G.Manu, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor.
4
CRL.MC NO. 3696 OF 2022
the entire dispute 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.
5
CRL.MC NO. 3696 OF 2022
abuse of process of any Court.
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-2 Final Report in C.C.No.780 of 2017 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Parappanangadi hereby stands quashed.
Sd/-
DR.KAUSER EDAPPAGATH, JUDGE
AS
CRL.MC NO. 3696 OF 2022
6
APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 3696/2022
PETITIONERS' ANNEXURES:
ANNEXURE 1 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR DATED 07.04.2017 IN CRIME NO.129 OF 2017 IN TIRURANGADI POLICE STATION. ANNEXURE 2 COPY OF THE CHARGE SHEET SUBMITTED BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, PARAPPANANGADI IN C.C.NO.780 OF 2017 ANNEXURE 3 AFFIDAVIT OF THE DE FACTO COMPLAINANT DATED 26.05.2022 BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court can quash criminal proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. based on a settlement in a non-compoundable matrimonial offence.
Whether the quashing of proceedings serves the ends of justice or prevents abuse of process given the personal nature of the dispute.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Gian Singh v. State of PunjabRelied on¶48
_Gian Singh v. State of Punjab_ [2012 (4) KLT 108 (SC)]
Narinder Singh and Others v. State of Punjab and OthersRelied on¶48
_Narinder Singh and Others v. State of Punjab and Others_ [(2014) 6 SCC 466] · Who else cites this
State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan and OthersRelied on¶48
_State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan and Others_ [(2019) 5 SCC 688] · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
HAMSA
FATHIMA
KAMARUNNISA
AFZAL
SIDDIQUE
SHAKKEELA
KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
