Allowed

Rafeeq v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC28 Oct 2022Crl.MC/5911/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala granted a petition to quash the final report in a criminal case alleging offences under Sections 498A and 406 IPC. Upholding principles from Supreme Court precedents, the court held that quashing was warranted as the personal dispute had been amicably settled by the parties, causing no adverse effect on public interest.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Misc. No. 5911 of 2022 allowed; C.C. No. 142/2020 on file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Perinthalmanna quashed.

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

¶1

CRL.MC NO. 5911 OF 2022

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH FRIDAY, THE 28^TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2022 / 6TH KARTHIKA, 1944

¶6

CRL.MC NO. 5911 OF 2022

¶7

CC 142/2020 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -I,

¶8

PERINTHALMANNA

¶9

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

¶10

1RAFEEQ, AGED 37 YEARS
S/O MOIDEEN HAJI,
CHERUKATTIL HOUSE, KADUNGAPURAM, PARAVAKKAL,
PERINTHALMANNA TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.
PIN - 679321

¶11

2NASAR
AGED 48 YEARS
S/O MOIDEEN HAJI,
CHERUKATTIL HOUSE, KADUNGAPURAM, PARAVAKKAL,
PERINTHALMANNA TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.
PIN - 679321
3FATHIMA
AGED 67 YEARS
W/O MOIDEEN HAJI,
CHERUKATTIL HOUSE, KADUNGAPURAM, PARAVAKKAL,
PERINTHALMANNA TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT
PIN - 679321
4ISHABI
AGED 33 YEARS
D/O MOIDEEN HAJI,
CHERUKATTIL HOUSE, KADUNGAPURAM, PARAVAKKAL,
PERINTHALMANNA TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.
PIN - 679321
BY ADV P.SAMSUDIN

¶12

RESPONDENTS:

¶13

1STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM., PIN – 682031

¶14

CRL.MC NO. 5911 OF 2022

¶15

¶16

2RISNA BILKEES
AGED 32 YEARS
D/O MUHAMMED,
ULLANGADAN HOUSE, MULLAMPARA,
MANJERI PO, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.
PIN - 676121

¶17

R1 BY SMT.T.V.NEEMA-SR.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
R2 BY ADV M.ANUROOP

¶18

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
28.10.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

CRL.MC NO. 5911 OF 2022

¶20

¶21

O R D E R

¶22

This Crl.M.C. has been preferred to quash Annexure A2 Final Report in C.C.No.142/2020 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Perinthalmanna on the ground of settlement between the parties.

¶23

The petitioners is the accused Nos.1 to 4. The 2^nd respondent is the de facto complainant.

¶24

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

¶25

The respondent No.2 entered appearance through counsel. An affidavit sworn in by her is also produced.

¶26

I have heard Sri.Samsudin Panolan, the learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri.M.Anuroop, the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 and Smt.T.V.Neema, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor.

¶27

The averments in the petition as well as the affidavit

¶28

CRL.MC NO. 5911 OF 2022

¶29

¶30

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

¶31

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.

¶32

The Apex Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab [2012

¶33

(4) KLT 108 (SC)], Narinder Singh and Others v. State of Punjab

¶34

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.

¶35

CRL.MC NO. 5911 OF 2022

¶36

¶37

The dispute in the above case is purely personal in

¶38

nature. No public interest or harmony will be adversely affected by quashing the proceedings pursuant to Annexure A2 Final Report. 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).

¶39

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 A2 Final Report in C.C.No.142/2020 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate

¶40

Court, Perinthalmanna hereby stands quashed.

¶41

Sd/-

¶42

DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH JUDGE

¶43

¶44

CRL.MC NO. 5911 OF 2022

¶45

¶46

APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 5911/2022

¶47

PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A1CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.
96/2019 OF KOLATHUR POLICE STATION AND
PRIVATE COMPLAINT FILED BEFORE THE CHEIF
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, MANJERI
Annexure A2CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN
CRIME NO. 96/2019 OF KOLATHUR POLICE
STATION
Annexure A3THE ORIGINAL AFFIDAVIT DATED 27-07-2022
SWORN IN BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT

¶48

RESPONDENTS ANNEXURES: NIL

Rafeeq v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rafeeq 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

Divine Ross Vs State of Kerala

Gopalan Ezhuthassan Vs State of Kerala

Krishna Prasad S., Vs State of Kerala

Vishnu Indhusekharan Vs State of Kerala

Satheesh Kumar Vs State of Kerala

Gokul Vs State of Kerala