Allowed

Mehaboob v. State of Kerala Rep by Public Prosecutor

Kerala HC24 Nov 2022Crl.MC/984/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Crl. M.C. allowed quashing FIR/charges against accused for domestic violence offence 31 PDVA on settlement basis Section 482 CrPC Apex Court precedents applied paragraph 25 judgment applied Gian Singh Narinder Singh Laxmi Narayan paragraph 25.

What did the court decide?

CRIMINAL MC 984 2022 allowed final report cc no 71 2019 mananthavady quashed settlement surety annexure a2 final report cc no 71 2019 mananthavady quashed

Mehaboob Vs State of Kerala Rep by Public Prosecutor — Domestic Violence | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH THURSDAY, THE 24^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022/3RD AGRAHAYANA, 1944 CRL.MC NO. 984 OF 2022

¶4

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN C.C.NO.71 OF 2019 ON THE FILE OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-I, MANANTHAVADY

¶5

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

¶6

MEHABOOB AGED 40 YEARS, MUTHIRA HOUSE, ANJUKUNNU POST, ANJUKUNNU, PANAMARAM, WAYANAD-, PIN - 670721

¶7

BY ADV M.R.SASITH

¶8

RESPONDENTS/ DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:

¶9

1 STATE OF KERALA REP BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031

¶10

2 THE SUB INSPECTOR PANAMARAM POLICE STATION, WAYANAD, PIN - 670721 3 NAJILA AGED 35 YEARS MUTHIRA HOUSE, ANJUKUNNU POST, ANJUKUNNU, PANAMARAM, WAYANAD-, PIN - 670721 SMT C SEENA-PP

¶11

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24.11.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶12

CRL.MC NO. 984 of 2022

¶13

-:2:-

¶14

O R D E R

¶15

Dated this the 24 th day of November, 2022

¶16

This Crl.M.C. has been preferred to quash Annexure-A2 Final Report in C.C.No.71 of 2019 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Mananthavady on the ground of settlement between the parties.

¶17

The petitioner is the accused. The 2^nd respondent is the de facto complainant.

¶18

The offence alleged against the petitioner is punishable under Section 31(1) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

¶19

An affidavit sworn in by the 2^nd respondent is also produced.

¶20

I have heard Sri. M.R.Sasith, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt.C.Seena, the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶21

The averments in the petition as well as the affidavit sworn in by the 2^nd respondent 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

¶22

CRL.MC NO. 984 of 2022

¶23

-:3:-

¶24

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.

¶25

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

¶26

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-A2. The

¶27

CRL.MC NO. 984 of 2022

¶28

-:4:-

¶29

offence 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

¶30

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 any further. Accordingly, the Crl.M.C. is allowed. Annexure-A2 Final Report in C.C.No.71 of 2019 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Mananthavady hereby stands quashed.

¶32

Sd/-

¶33

DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH

¶34

JUDGE

¶35

APA

¶36

CRL.MC NO. 984 of 2022

¶37

-:5:-

¶38

APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 984/2022

¶39

PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES

¶40

Annexure1 TRUE COPY OF THE FIR NO.424/2018 IN PANAMARAM POLICE STATION, WAYANAD Annexure2 TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO: 424/ 2018 OF MANANTHAVADY POLICE STATION, WAYANAD.

Mehaboob v. State of Kerala Rep by Public Prosecutor

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mehaboob v. State of Kerala Rep by Public Prosecutor

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

Sajila Vs the State of Kerala

Divakaran Vs the State of Kerala

P.D.Anilkumar Vs the State of Kerala

M.P.Mohanan Vs Sudha Devi K.V.

Sarath Vs State of Kerala

Yyyy Vs State of Kerala