Allowed

Ayoob v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC13 Dec 2022Crl.MC/6061/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed further proceedings in a criminal case arising from a domestic dispute. The court found Section 307 IPC inapplicable due to minor injuries, reduced the charge to Section 308 IPC, and allowed quashing based on a settlement between parties citing Supreme Court precedents.

What did the court decide?

Crl.M.C. allowed; all further proceedings pursuant to Annexure A3 Final Report in Crime No.82/2022 quashed.

Ayoob 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

TUESDAY, THE 13^TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2022 / 22ND AGRAHAYANA,

¶5

1944

¶6

CRL.MC NO. 6061 OF 2022

¶7

CR.NO.82/2022 OF EDAKKARA POLICE STATION,CP 20/2022 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS ,NILAMBUR

¶8

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

¶9

1 AYOOB, AGED 56 YEARS S/O UNNIMOIDHEEN, VADAKKAN HOUSE, KARAPPURAM P.O., NILAMBUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT

¶10

PIN - 679331

¶11

2 FASNI MOL, AGED 25 YEARS D/O AYOOB, VADAKKAN HOUSE, KARAPPURAM P.O., NILAMBUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. PIN - 679331

¶12

BY ADVS.P.SAMSUDIN LIRA A.B.

¶13

RESPONDENTS/STATE & COMPLAINANT:

¶14

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

¶15

2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER EDAKKARA POLICE STATION, EDAKKARA P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT PIN - 679331

¶16

Crl.M.C.No.6061/2022

¶17

-:2:-

¶18

3 SAJIDA, AGED 47 YEARS W/O AYOOB, VADAKKAN HOUSE, KARAPPURAM PO, MUTHEDOM, NILAMBUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT PIN - 679331

¶19

BY ADV M.ANUROOP

¶20

SRI. SANGEETHA RAJ, PP

¶21

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13.12.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

Crl.M.C.No.6061/2022

-:3:-

O R D E R

Dated this the 13^th day of December, 2022

¶26

This Crl.M.C. has been preferred to quash all further proceedings pursuant to Annexure A3 Final Report in Crime No.82/2022 of Edakkara Police Station on the ground of settlement between the parties.

¶27

The petitioners are the accused Nos. 1 and 2. The 3^rd respondent is the defacto complainant.

¶28

The offences alleged against the petitioners are punishable under Sections 341, 324, 307 read with 34 of IPC and Section 31(1) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act

¶29

The respondent No.3 entered appearance through counsel. An affidavit sworn in by her is also produced.

¶30

I have heard Sri. Samsudin P., the learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri. M. Anuroop, the learned counsel for the respondent No.3 and Sri. Sangeetha Raj, the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶31

It is true that the offence under Section 307 of IPC is

¶32

Crl.M.C.No.6061/2022

¶33

-:4:-

¶34

also included in the final report. However, a reading of the entire records as well as the wound certificate would show that Section 307 of IPC is not in fact attracted. In the FIR, Section 308 of IPC also was incorporated. But, in the final report, Section 307 of IPC was added. The 1^st petitioner/1^st accused is the former husband of the defacto complainant and the 2^nd petitioner/2^nd accused is the daughter of the 1^st petitioner in the 1^st marriage. Even though the allegation is that petitioners chopped on the head of the victim with a knife, the would certificate would show that injury sustained is minor in nature. Hence, Section 308 alone is attracted.

¶35

The averments in the petition as well as the affidavit sworn in by the respondent No.3 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.

¶36

Crl.M.C.No.6061/2022

¶37

-:5:-

¶38

The Apex Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab

¶39

[2012 (4) KLT 108 (SC)], Narinder Singh and Others v. State

¶40

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.

¶41

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 A3. 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).

¶42

For the reasons stated above, I am of the view that no purpose will be served in proceeding with the matter any further.

¶43

Crl.M.C.No.6061/2022

¶44

-:6:-

¶45

Accordingly, the Crl.M.C. is allowed. All further proceedings pursuant to Annexure A3 Final Report in Crime No.82/2022 of Edakkara Police Station hereby stands quashed.

¶46

sd/- DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH

JUDGE

Crl.M.C.No.6061/2022

-:7:-

APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 6061/2022

¶52

PETITIONER ANNEXURES

¶53

Annexure A1 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE COMPLIANT AND FIR IN CRIME NO. 82/2022 OF EDAKKARA POLICE STATION Annexure A2 TRUE COPY OF THE WOUND CERTIFICATE IN CRIME 82/2022 OF EDAKKARA POLICE STATION Annexure A3 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT AND MEMORANDUM OF EVIDENCE IN CRIME NO. 82/2022 OF EDAKKARA POLICE STATION. Annexure A4 TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT ENTERED INTO BETWEEN THE 1ST PETITIONER AND 3RD RESPONDENT Annexure A5 THE AFFIDAVIT DATED 18-07-2022 SWORN BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT

Ayoob v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ayoob 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

Rajan P M Vs Sub Inspector of Police

Vishnu.U.B. Vs State of Kerala

Nias Marikkar, Vs State of Kerala

Ali Kadavandi Vs State of Kerala

Chokkuvinte Ahammed Vs Chokkuvinte Kunhamina Umma

Sreedevi Vs Principal Secretary