Allowed

Junaid v. Rasiya K.P.

Kerala HC26 Oct 2022Crl.MC/79/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Kerala High Court allowed a criminal miscellaneous case filed by four accused seeking quashing of an Annexure B Final Report in a criminal complaint. The court held that since the dispute was personal, amicably settled, and did not harm public interest, the proceedings were quashed under Section 482 CrPC.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Misc. Case is allowed and the Annexure B Final Report in C.C. No. 1318/2020 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Mattannur is quashed.

Junaid Vs Rasiya K.P. — 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

WEDNESDAY, THE 26^TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2022/4TH KARTHIKA, 1944

¶5

CRL.MC NO. 79 OF 2021

¶6

CC 1318/2020 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

¶7

MATTANNUR

¶8

CRIME NO.37/2020 OF MUZHAKKUNNU POLICE STATION, KANNUR

¶9

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED:

¶10

1 JUNAID AGED 20 YEARS S/O. RASHEED, VELIKKOTH HOUSE, ADAKKA PEEDIKA, MUZHAKKUNNU, IRITTY TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT. 2 T.V.ASHARUDDEEN, AGED 25 YEARS S/O.MUHAMMEDALI, HABEEBAS, ADAKKA PEEDIKA, MUZHAKKUNNU, IRITTY TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT. 3 T.V.ARSHAD, AGED 27 YEARS S/O.MUHAMMEDALI, HABEEBAS, ADAKKA PEEDIKA, MUZHAKKUNNU, IRITTY TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT. 4 BASIL KUNNATH, AGED 25 YEARS S/O. SALAM P., MUNAVIR MANZIL, KAVUMPADI, THILLANKERI (PO), IRITTY TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADVS. P.V.ANOOP SRI.PHIJO PRADEESH PHILIP SRI.M.P.PRIYESHKUMAR

¶11

RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE:

¶12

1 RASIYA K.P. AGED 31 YEARS W/O. SHAFEEK, KACHIPRAVAN HOUSE, VILAKKODE, MUZHAKKUNNU, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN-670673, NOW RESIDING AT PUTHIYAVEETTIL HOUSE, THONDANKUZHI, VILAKKODE, MUZHAKKUNNU, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN-670673.

¶13

Crl.M.C.No.79 of 2021

¶14

..2..

¶15

2 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682031. BY ADV SRI.K.V.SREERAJ

¶16

OTHER PRESENT : SMT.T.V.NEEMA SR. Public Prosecutor

¶17

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26.10.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

Crl.M.C.No.79 of 2021

¶19

..3..

¶20

ORDER

¶21

This Crl.M.C. has been preferred to quash Annexure B Final Report in C.C.No.1318/2020 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Mattannur on the ground of settlement between the parties.

¶22

The petitioners are the accused Nos.1 to 4. The 1^st respondent is the de facto complainant.

¶23

The offences alleged against the petitioners are punishable under Sections 341, 323, 354, 452 and 506 r/w 34 of the IPC.

¶24

The respondent No.1 entered appearance through counsel. An affidavit sworn in by her is also produced.

¶25

I have heard Sri.Anoop.P.V., the learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri.K.V.Sreeraj, the learned counsel for the respondent No.1 and Smt.T.V.Neema, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor.

¶26

The averments in the petition as well as the affidavit sworn in by the respondent No.1 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

¶27

Crl.M.C.No.79 of 2021

¶28

..4..

¶29

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.

¶30

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

¶31

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 B Final Report in C.C.No.1318/2020 on the file of the Judicial First

¶32

Crl.M.C.No.79 of 2021

¶33

Class Magistrate Court, Mattannur. 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).

¶34

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 B Final Report in C.C.No.1318/2020 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Mattannur hereby stands quashed.

¶35

Sd/-

¶36

DR.KAUSER EDAPPAGATH, JUDGE

¶37

skj

¶38

Crl.M.C.No.79 of 2021

¶39

..6..

¶40

APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 79/2021

¶41

PETITIONERS' ANNEXURES ANNEXURE A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.37/2020 OF MUZHAKKUNNU POLICE STATION, KANNUR. ANNEXURE B CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO.37/2020 WHICH IS NOW PENDING AGAINST THE PETITIONER AS C.C.NO.1318/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, MATTANNUR. ANNEXURE C AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT DATED 12.3.2020.

Junaid v. Rasiya K.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Junaid v. Rasiya K.P.

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

Chempakakutty Vs Rethikamani

Varghese Thankan Vs State of Kerala

Dr.Wesley K. Abraham Vs Anju Antony

T. Sangamesan Vs State of Kerala

Sunith Kumar B. Vs Sreerekha K.

Vinod P. @ Vinu Vs State of Kerala