Allowed

Muhammed Anees v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC22 Dec 2022Crl.MC/4549/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court quashed criminal proceedings CC No. 266/2018 under Sections 498-A and 406 IPC after the parties reached a settlement. The court held that no public interest would be harmed and the proceedings should be aborted as no further purpose would be served.

What did the court decide?

Criminal case C.C.No.266/2018 filed before Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Vatakara is quashed.

Muhammed Anees Vs State of Kerala — Domestic Violence | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 22^ND DAY OF DECEMBER 2022 / 1ST POUSHA, 1944

¶5

CRL.MC NO. 4549 OF 2018 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC 266/2018 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS ,VADAKARA

¶6

PETITIONER/1ST ACCUSED:

¶7

MUHAMMED ANEES AGED 36 YEARS, S/O. KHADAR, GARDEN HOUSE, VALLIL, KANNOOKKARA, CHOMBALA. BY ADV SRI.U.K.DEVIDAS

¶8

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

¶9

1 STATE OF KERALA REP.BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VATAKARA POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶10

2 RASHEEDA S/O AHAMMED, AGED 27 YEARS, FAHMIDA MANZIL HOUSE, KOYILANDY VALPPIL, VATAKARA AMSOM DESOM, VATAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. [impleaded as addl.R2 as per order dated 7/11/2018 in Crl.M.A. 2/2018 in Crl.MC 4549/2018]

¶11

BY ADVS. R.PARTHASARATHY SEEMA

¶12

SMT T V NEEMA -SR PP

¶13

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22.12.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

CRL.MC NO. 4549 of 2018

¶15

-:2:-

¶16

O R D E R

¶17

Dated this the 22 nd day of December, 2022

¶18

This Crl.M.C. has been preferred to quash all further proceedings in C.C.No.266/2018 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Vatakara on the ground of settlement between the parties. During the pendency of the above Crl.M.C. the matter has been settled between the parties. It is submitted that the 2 nd accused has already been acquitted.

¶19

The petitioner is the 1^st accused. The 2^nd respondent is the de facto complainant.

¶20

The offences alleged against the petitioner are punishable under Sections 498-A and 406 of Indian Penal Code.

¶21

The 2^nd respondent entered appearance through counsel. An affidavit sworn in by her is also produced.

¶22

I have heard Sri.U.K.Devidas, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri.R.Parthasarathy, the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 and Smt.T.V.Neema, the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶23

The averments in the petition as well as the affidavit

¶24

CRL.MC NO. 4549 of 2018

¶25

-:3:-

¶26

sworn in by the 2^nd respondent would show that 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.

¶27

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.

¶28

CRL.MC NO. 4549 of 2018

¶29

-:4:-

¶30

The dispute in the above case is purely personal in nature. No public interest or harmony will be adversely affected by quashing the proceedings in C.C.No.266/2018 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Vatakara . The offences in question does 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).

¶31

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. C.C.No.266/2018 on the file

¶32

of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Vatakara hereby stands quashed.

¶33

Sd/- DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH JUDGE

¶34

APA

¶35

CRL.MC NO. 4549 of 2018

¶36

-:5:-

¶37

APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 4549/2018

¶38

PETITIONERS' ANNEXURES

¶39

ANNEXURE -I TRUE COPY OF THE PRIVATE COMPLAINT DATED 6/9/2012 ANNEXURE-IICERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO. 882/2012 OF VATAKARA POLICE STATION, DATED 21/10/2012. ANNEXURE IIITRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF EVIDENCE IN CRIME NO. 882/2012 OF VATAKARA POLICE STATION. ANNEXURE IVCERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 21/3/2018 IN CC NO.1632 OF 2012 ON THE FILES OF J.F.C.M. COURT, VADAKARA

Muhammed Anees v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Muhammed Anees 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

Ramseena Vs State of Kerala

Food Corporation of India Vs M.B.Vijayaraghavan Nair and Another

Firdous Vs State of Kerala

Aneesh Vs State of Kerala

Kochuthresia @ Shiny Vs State of Kerala

Binoop Vs State of Kerala Represented by Public Prosecutor