Allowed

Abdul Jaleel v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC14 Jul 2022Crl.MC/576/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Crl.M.C. No. 576 of 2022 was filed to quash the Final Report in C.C. No. 466/2016 alleging offences under Sections 354 and 509 IPC. The accused settled the dispute with the complainant. The High Court held that since the matter was amicably settled and involved no public interest, the proceedings were quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to prevent abuse of process.

What did the court decide?

Crl.M.C. No. 576 of 2022 allowed. Annexure-1 Final Report in C.C. No. 466/2016 quashed.

Abdul Jaleel Vs State of Kerala — 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

THURSDAY, THE 14^TH DAY OF JULY 2022 / 23RD ASHADHA, 1944

¶5

CRL.MC NO. 576 OF 2022

¶6

CRIME NO. 196/2010 OF BINANIPURAM POLICE STATION

¶7

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

¶8

ABDUL JALEEL AGED 60 YEARS SON OF MOIDU, CHAKKUMMEL HOUSE, JANASHAKTHI ROAD, VAZHAPPILLY KARA,VELLOORKUNNAM VILLAGE, MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK, SON OF ERNAKULAM, PIN - 686661 BY ADVS. T.E.ISMAIL PRABHA JOSE

¶9

RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT/CW1:

¶10

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031 2 RAMLA BEEGUM AGED 54 YEARS WIFE OF BASHEER KOOTTUNGAL HOUSE THANDIRIKKAL COLONY MUPPATHADOM KARA, KADUNGALLOOR VILLAGE PARAVUR TALUK ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683110 BY ADV PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶11

SRI P G MANU-SR PP

¶12

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14.07.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶13

Crl.M.C.No.576 of 2022

¶14

..2..

¶15

ORDER

¶16

This Crl.M.C. has been preferred to quash

¶17

Annexure-1 Final Report in C.C. No. 466/2016 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-II, Aluva on the ground of settlement between the parties.

¶18

The petitioner is the sole accused. The respondent No. 2 is the de facto complainant.

¶19

The offences alleged against the petitioner are punishable under Sections 354 and 509 of the IPC.

¶20

The respondent No.2 entered appearance through

¶21

counsel. An affidavit sworn in by her is also produced.

¶22

I have heard Sri. T E Ismail, the learned counsel for

¶23

the petitioner, Sri. V H Ubaidulla, the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 and Sri. P G Manu, the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶24

The averments in the petition as well as the affidavit

¶25

sworn in by the respondent No.2 would show that the entire

¶26

Crl.M.C.No.576 of 2022

¶27

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.

¶28

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

¶29

Crl.M.C.No.576 of 2022

¶30

..4..

¶31

Court.

¶32

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-1. 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).

¶33

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-1 Final Report in C.C. No. 466/2016 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-II, Aluva hereby stands quashed.

¶34

Sd/-

¶35

DR.KAUSER EDAPPAGATH, JUDGE

¶36

RMV

¶37

Crl.M.C.No.576 of 2022

¶38

..5..

¶39

APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 576/2022

¶40

PETITIONER ANNEXURES

¶41

Annexure 1 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME 196/2010 OF BINANIPURAM POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT AND PENDING AS C.C.466/2016 BEFORE THE HON'BLE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-II AT ALUVA Annexure 2 THE AFFIDAVIT OF THE RESPONDENT NO.2/CW1

Abdul Jaleel v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abdul Jaleel 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

Thayyullathil Ratheesan Vs Moothattil Sreedharan

Rupesh Vs Ambily

Asif Nazeer Vs State of Kerala

Sebastian V.T. @ Jose Vs State of Kerala

Abdul Rahman Vs State of Kerala

Shyam Das, Vs State of Kerala