Allowed

Ashraf Kurikkal @ Muthu v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC16 Jan 2023Crl.MC/124/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a Criminal Miscellaneous petition seeking quashing of criminal proceedings via a Final Complaint Report. The court held that since the dispute was settled amicably between parties and was purely personal in nature, quashing was warranted under Section 482 CrPC.

What did the court decide?

Crl.M.C. No. 124 of 2023 allowed and Annexure 2 Final Report in C.C.No.35/2022 quashed.

Ashraf Kurikkal @ Muthu Vs State of Kerala — Quashing and FIR | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

CRL.MC NO. 124 OF 2023

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
MONDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF JANUARY 2023 / 26TH POUSHA, 1944

¶6

CRL.MC NO. 124 OF 2023

¶7

CRIME NO.472/2021 OF Karuvarakundu Police Station, Malappuram
C.C.NO.35/2022 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT

¶8

I,MANJERY

¶9

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

¶10

ASHRAF KURIKKAL @ MUTHU, AGED 44 YEARS
S/O. MUHAMMED, MANCHERY HOUSE, PANDIKAD.P.O,
MALAPPURAM -676521, PIN - 676521
BY ADVS.
ROOPESH N.R.
M.V. RATHISH
SAJITH BOSE
GLORIA ANNA AUGUSTINE
DEVU S. PILLAI

¶11

RESPONDENT/S:

¶12

1STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
KARUVARAKUNDU POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT,
THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031.
2MUHAMMED MUNEER, AGED 52 YEARS
S/O ALAVI HAJI, VALLIL HOUSE, IRRINGATTIRI,
VEETTIKKUNNU, KARUVARAKKUND.P.O,
MALAPPURAM-676523.

¶13

BY ADVS.
R1 BY SRI.P.G.MANU-SR.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
R2 BY SMT.N.A.SWAPNA
A.P.MOHAMMED SAFUL

¶14

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON

¶15

16.01.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

CRL.MC NO. 124 OF 2023

¶17

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

This Crl.M.C. has been preferred to quash Annexure 2 Final

¶20

Report in C.C.No.35/2022 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court I, Manjery on the ground of settlement between the parties.

¶21

The petitioner is the accused. The 2^nd respondent is the

¶22

de facto complainant.

¶23

The offences alleged against the petitioner are punishable

¶24

under Sections 294(b), 323, 324, 341, 448 and 506(i) of IPC.

¶25

The respondent No.2 entered appearance through

¶26

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

¶27

I have heard Sri.Roopesh.N.R, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Smt.N.A.Swapna, the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 and Sri.P.G.Manu, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor.

¶28

The averments in the petition as well as the affidavit

¶29

sworn in by the respondent No.2 would show that the entire

¶30

CRL.MC NO. 124 OF 2023

¶31

¶32

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 he reported that the matter was amicably settled.

¶33

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.

¶34

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.

¶35

The dispute in the above case is purely personal in

¶36

nature. No public interest or harmony will be adversely affected by

¶37

¶38

CRL.MC NO. 124 OF 2023

¶39

quashing the proceedings pursuant to Annexure 2 Final Report. 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).

¶40

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 2 Final Report in C.C.No.35/2022 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court I, Manjery hereby stands quashed.

¶41

Sd/-

¶42

DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH JUDGE

¶43

¶44

CRL.MC NO. 124 OF 2023

¶45

¶46

APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 124/2023

¶47

PETITIONER ANNEXURES
AnnexureA1CERTIFIED COPY OF FIRST INFORMATION
REPORT IN CRIME NO. 472/2021 OF THE
KARUVARAKKUNDU POLICE STATION IN
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT
Annexure2CERTIFIED COPY OF FINAL REPORT IN CRIME
NO. 472/2021 OF THE KARUVARAKUNDU POLICE
STATION IN MALAPPURAM DISTRICT
Annexure3ORIGINAL OF THE AFFIDAVIT DATED
12.12.2022 SWORN BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT/DE
FACTO COMPLAINANT

¶48

RESPONDENTS ANNEXURES: NIL

Ashraf Kurikkal @ Muthu v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashraf Kurikkal @ Muthu 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

Dhanesh Padmanabhan Vs State of Kerala

Muhammed Althaf Vs State of Kerala

Hareesh Vs State of Kerala

Muhammed Riyas Vs State of Kerala

Aneesh V.S Vs State of Kerala

Sheghil S.P Vs State of Kerala