Allowed

Ajimsha v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC19 Jul 2022Crl.MC/910/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed a criminal miscellaneous petition to quash criminal proceedings following a settlement between the parties. Relying on Supreme Court precedents, the court held that quashing was warranted as the dispute was personal and served the ends of justice.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Miscellaneous Case is allowed and the Annexure A1 Final Report in CC No. 819/2019 is hereby quashed.

Ajimsha 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

TUESDAY, THE 19^TH DAY OF JULY 2022 / 28TH ASHADHA, 1944

¶5

CRL.MC NO. 910 OF 2021

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC 819/2019 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -II,NEDUMANGAD

¶7

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 TO 5:

¶8

1 AJIMSHA AGED 37 YEARS S/O. SHAHUL HAMEED, RESIDING AT SHAMNAD MANZIL, NEAR PULLUVILA GOVT. HOSPITAL, PULLUVILA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-695 526.

¶9

2 SHAHUL HAMEED AGED 68 YEARS S/O. MAIDEEN KANNU, RESIDING AT SHAMNAD MANZIL, NEAR PULLUVILA GOVT. HOSPITAL, PULLUVILA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-695 526. 3 SHAMSHAM BEEVI AGED 60 YEARS W/O. SHAHUL HAMEED, RESIDING AT SHAMNAD MANZIL, NEAR PULLUVILA GOVT. HOSPITAL, PULLUVILA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-695 526. 4 ASHIQ AGED 34 YEARS S/O. SHAHUL HAMEED, RESIDING AT SHAMNAD MANZIL, NEAR PULLUVILA GOVT. HOSPITAL, PULLUVILA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-695 526. 5 SUMAYYA @ SOUMYA AGED 30 YEARS W/O. ASHIK RESIDING AT SHAMNAD MANZIL, NEAR PULLUVILA GOVT. HOSPITAL, PULLUVILA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-695 526. BY ADVS. J.R.PREM NAVAZ SHRI.SUMEEN S.

¶10

RESPONDENTS/STATE, DE FACTO COMPLAINANT:

¶11

Crl.M.C.No.910 of 2021

¶12

..2..

¶13

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN-682 032. 2 SHIMNA R.S. AGED 27 YEARS W/O. SJIMSHA, RESIDING AT SHAMNAD MANZIL, NEAR PULLUVILA GOVT. HOSPITAL, PULLUVILA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-695 526. BY ADV AJOY VENU

¶14

SRI P G MANU-SR PP

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19.07.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

Crl.M.C.No.910 of 2021

¶17

..3..

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

This Crl.M.C. has been preferred to quash Annexure A1 Final Report in CC No. 819/2019 on the file of the Judicial

¶20

First Class Magistrate's Court-II, Nedumangad on the ground of settlement between the parties.

¶21

The petitioners are the accused Nos 1 to 5. The respondent No. 2 is the de facto complainant.

¶22

The offences alleged against the petitioners are punishable under Sections 323, 354, 498A, 294(b) read with 34 of the IPC.

¶23

The respondent No. 2 entered appearance through

¶24

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

¶25

I have heard Sri. J R Prem Navaz, the learned

¶26

counsel for the petitioners, Sri. Ajoy Venu, the learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 and Sri. P G Manu, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor.

¶27

The averments in the petition as well as the affidavit

¶28

Crl.M.C.No.910 of 2021

¶29

..4..

¶30

sworn in by the respondent No. 2 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.

¶31

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

¶32

..5..

¶33

Crl.M.C.No.910 of 2021

¶34

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

¶35

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 A1. 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).

¶36

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 A1 Final Report in CC No. 819/2019 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-II, Nedumangad hereby stands quashed.

¶37

Sd/-

¶38

DR.KAUSER EDAPPAGATH, JUDGE

¶39

RMV

¶40

Crl.M.C.No.910 of 2021

¶41

..6..

¶42

APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 910/2021

¶43

PETITIONER ANNEXURES

¶44

ANNEXURE A1 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT/CHARGE SHEET IN CC.NO.819 OF 2019 ON THE FILES OF TEH COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS II, NEDUMANGADU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. ANNEXURE A2 THE AFFIDAVIT, SOLEMNLY AFFIRMED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT.

Ajimsha v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ajimsha 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

Nishadudeen Vs State of Kerala

Sreedharan, C.NO.1752 Vs State of Kerala

Sasi, C NO.1965, Central Prison, Thiruvananthapuram Vs State of Kerala

Ashraf Vs Sabira

Risna Vs State of Kerala

Nada Ferin Vs State of Kerala