Allowed

Zeenath v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC9 Oct 2023Crl.MC/3906/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed the Criminal Miscellaneous petition and quashed the criminal proceedings against the petitioner. The Court held that since the disputes arose from a business relationship and were settled by the complainant, continuing the prosecution would not serve public interest.

What did the court decide?

Crl.M.C. allowed; proceedings in C.C.No.3083/2014 quashed as against the petitioner.

Zeenath Vs State of Kerala — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.

¶4

MONDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2023 / 17TH ASWINA, 1945

¶5

CRL.MC NO. 3906 OF 2018

¶6

IN CC 3083/2014 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS - I,
KARUNAGAPPALLY

¶7

CRIME NO.825/2011 OF KARUNAGAPPALLY POLICE STATION, KOLLAM

¶8

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

¶9

ZEENATH
AGED 55 YEARS, W/O SHAFI MUSALIAR,
SHAFI MANZIL, TKMC PO, KARIKODE, KOLLAM.

¶10

BY ADVS.

¶11

 SRI.S.RAJEEV
 SRI.K.K.DHEERENDRAKRISHNAN
 SRI.D.FEROZE
 SRI.V.VINAY

¶12

RESPONDENTS/STATE/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:

¶13

1STATE OF KERALA
REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
ERNAKULAM-682 031, (CRIME NO.825/2011 OF KARUNAGAPPALLY
POLICE STATION, KOLLAM DISTRICT)

¶14

2A LAYLA
W/O HASHIM,
SELMA MANZIL, VEMBAYAM PO,THEKKADA VILLAGE,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 006.

¶15

BY ADVS.

¶16

 SMT.INDU SUSAN JACOB
 SRI.LIJU.V.STEPHEN
 SRI. G. SUDHEER (PP)

¶17

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
09.10.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

Crl.MC NO.3906 OF 2018 2

¶19

ORDER

¶20

Petitioner is the accused in Crime No.825/2011 of Karunagappally Police Station, which was registered alleging commission of offences under Sections 406, 420, 463 and 468 of the Indian Penal Code. The allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner, who is the sister of the defacto complainant (2^nd respondent) had cheated the defacto complainant and other sisters by altering the conditions mentioned in a partnership deed and producing the same before the Secretary of the local Panchayath and thereby she committed the offences alleged against her.

¶21

When this matter is taken up for consideration today, it is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the disputes arose on account of business relationship between the petitioner and the 2^nd respondent. It is submitted that all disputes between the petitioner and the 2^nd respondent have now been settled and the 2^nd respondent does not wish to continue with the prosecution against the petitioner. It is submitted that the proceedings are now

¶22

Crl.MC NO.3906 OF 2018 3

¶23

pending as C.C.No.3083/2014 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Karunagappally. Reference is also made to Annexure-II notarized affidavit produced along with Crl.M.A.No.1 of 2023 to show that the issues between the petitioner and the 2^nd respondent have been settled.

¶24

3 . The learned Public Prosecutor seeks time to get instructions as to whether the matter has been settled. However, the learned counsel for the 2 nd respondent asserts that all issues between the petitioner and the 2 nd respondent have been settled.

¶25

4 . Having regard to the nature of the allegations and having regard to Annexure-II notarized afidavit executed by f the 2 nd respondent, I am of view that this is a ft case where i the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure can be invoked to quash the proceedings initiated against the petitioner. No public interest will be served by continuing with the proceedings against the petitioner. The allegations against the petitioner indicate that the complaint came to be fled on account of certain business i disputes between the petitioner and the 2 nd respondent. Keeping the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in

¶26

Crl.MC NO.3906 OF 2018 4

¶27

Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Another; (2012) 10 SCC 303, and State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan and Others; (2019) 5 SCC 688, I am of the view that considering the nature of the offences alleged against the petitioner the proceedings can be quashed on the basis of settlement.

¶28

Accordingly, this Crl.M.C is allowed and all further proceedings in C.C.No.3083/2014 on the fle of the Judicial i Magistrate of First Class, Karunagappally (Crime No.825/2011 of Karunagappally Police Station, Kollam district), will stand quashed as against the petitioner.

¶29

Sd/- GOPINATH P. JUDGE

¶30

ats

¶31

Crl.MC NO.3906 OF 2018 5

¶32

APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 3906/2018

¶33

PETITIONER’S ANNEXURES

¶34

Annexure IITHE NOTARIZED AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT DATED 05.09.2023
ANNEXURE 1CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN
CRIME NO.825/2011 OF KARUNAGAPALLY POLICE
STATION.

Zeenath v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Zeenath 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

Krishnakumar N. Nair Vs State of Kerala

Nusarath Vs State of Kerala

Saneesh M.S @ Sanu, Vs State of Kerala

Sudhi.S.N Vs State of Kerala

Jesumani Selvaraj Jaskar, Vs State of Kerala

Arun Das Vs State of Kerala