Allowed

Ibrahim.K.a v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC1 Apr 2022Crl.MC/757/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Kerala High Court allowed a criminal miscellaneous petition to quash the final report in a case involving IPC offences under Scheme 6, relying on Supreme Court precedents to permit quashings where parties settle despite non-compoundability.

What did the court decide?

The criminal miscellaneous case is allowed; the Annexure 2 Final Report in Crime No. 5/2017 of Bekal Police Station is quashed.

Ibrahim.K.a Vs State of Kerala — Quashing and FIR | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 1^ST DAY OF APRIL 2022 / 11TH CHAITHRA, 1944

¶5

CRL.MC NO. 757 OF 2022

¶6

Crime No.5/2017 of Bekal Police Station, Kasaragod

¶7

PETITIONERS:

¶8

1 IBRAHIM.K.A AGED 28 YEARS SON OF ABDUL KHADER @ PUNJABI ABDUL KHADER, SABIRA MANZIL, AYYANKOL, KALANAD VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK, KASARGOD, PIN - 671317 2 ABDUL HAMEED.K.A AGED 36 YEARS SON OF ABDUL KHADER @ PUNJABI ABDUL KHADER, SABIRA MANZIL, AYYANKOL, KALANAD VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK, KASARGOD, PIN – 671317 BY ADVS A.ARUNKUMAR DIVYA.T.P.

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - PIN - 682031 2 MUHAMMED SHERIEF AGED 45 YEARS SON OF LATE MUHAMMED HAJI, RESIDING AT KOMPANPARA HOUSE, KALANAD, KALANAD VILLAGE AND POST, KASARAGOD TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT PIN - 671121

¶11

Crl.M.C.No.757 of 2022

¶12

..2..

¶13

3 MARIYAM AGED 65 YEARS WIFE OF LATE MUHAMMED HAJI, RESIDING AT KOMPANPARA HOUSE, KALANAD, KALANAD VILLAGE AND POST, KASARAGOD TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT, PIN - 671121 R2 & R3 BY SRI.VIPIN.T.JOSE R1 BY SMT T V NEEMA -SR Public Prosecutor

¶14

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01.04.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

Crl.M.C.No.757 of 2022

¶16

..3..

¶17

ORDER

¶18

This Crl.M.C. has been preferred to quash Annexure 2 Final Report in Crime No.5/2017 of Bekal Police Station on the ground of settlement between the parties.

¶19

The petitioners are the accused Nos.1 and 2. The 2^nd respondent is the de facto complainant.

¶20

The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 341, 323, 324, 294(b), 452 and 506(ii) read with Section 34 of the IPC.

¶21

The respondent Nos.2 and 3 entered appearance through counsel. Affidavits sworn in by the respondents 2 and 3 are produced.

¶22

I have heard Sri.A.Arunkumar, the learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri.Vipin.T.Jose, the learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2 and 3 and Smt.T.V.Neema, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor for the respondent No.1.

¶23

The averments in the petition as well as the affidavits sworn in by the respondent Nos.2 and 3 would show that the entire dispute between the parties has been amicably

¶24

Crl.M.C.No.757 of 2022

¶25

settled and the de facto complainant has decided not to proceed with the crime 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 he reported that the matter was amicably settled.

¶26

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 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 ends of justice or to prevent abuse of process of any Court.

¶27

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 2

¶28

Crl.M.C.No.757 of 2022

¶29

..5..

¶30

Final Report in Crime No.5/2017 of Bekal Police Station. 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).

¶31

For the reasons stated above, I am of the view that no purpose will be served in proceeding with the matter further. Accordingly, the Crl.M.C. is allowed. Annexure 2 Final Report in Crime No.5/2017 of Bekal Police Station stands hereby quashed.

¶32

Sd/-

¶33

DR.KAUSER EDAPPAGATH, JUDGE

¶34

skj

¶35

Crl.M.C.No.757 of 2022

¶36

..6..

¶37

APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 757/2022

¶38

PETITIONERS' ANNEXURES

¶39

Annexure1 A TRUE COPY OF THE F.I.R IN CRIME NO.05 OF 2017 OF BEKAL POLICE STATION Annexure2 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO. 05 OF 2017 OF BEKAL POLICE STATION Annexure3 A TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN TO BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 07-01-2022. Annexure4 A TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN TO BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 07-01-2022.

Ibrahim.K.a v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ibrahim.K.a 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

Rajesh @ Rajesh Kumar Vs State of Kerala

Sandeep S.Nair, Vs the State of Kerala

Dhanush Babu Vs State of Kerala

Shibu Vs State of Kerala

Sreejith Vs the State of Kerala

Gijin Thomas Vs State of Kerala