Allowed

Asif Ali v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC5 Jan 2023Crl.MC/3945/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court allowed a criminal miscellaneous petition to quash an FIR under Sections 323, 406, 420, and 498-A IPC. The court held that despite the offences being non-compoundable, the matter could be quashed as the parties had reached a settlement and the dispute was purely personal, warranting the quashing under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to ensure justice.

What did the court decide?

The Crl.M.C. is allowed and the Annexure-A1 F.I.R. in Crime No.1665/2021 of Mattancherry Police Station, Ernakulam is quashed.

Asif Ali Vs State of Kerala — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 5^TH DAY OF JANUARY 2023 / 15TH POUSHA, 1944

¶5

CRL.MC NO. 3945 OF 2022

¶6

(CRIME NO.1665/2021 OF MATTANCHERRY POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM

¶7

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO. 1 TO 5:

¶8

1 ASIF ALI AGED 30 YEARS PUTHUVAL PURAYIDTHIL HOUSE, EDAYAKUNNAM, SOUTH CHITTOOR P.O, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682027

¶9

2 BEEVI AMEER AGED 57 YEARS PUTHUVAL PURAYIDTHIL HOUSE, EDAYAKUNNAM, SOUTH CHITTOOR P.O, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682027

¶10

3 AMEER AGED 62 YEARS PUTHUVAL PURAYIDTHIL HOUSE, EDAYAKUNNAM, SOUTH CHITTOOR P.O, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682027

¶11

4 SHAREENA ASHARAF AGED 30 YEARS PUTHUVAL PURAYIDTHIL HOUSE, EDAYAKUNNAM, SOUTH CHITTOOR P.O, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682027

¶12

5 BUSHARA NASSIMUDHEEN AGED 28 YEARS PUTHUVAL PURAYIDTHIL HOUSE, EDAYAKUNNAM, SOUTH CHITTOOR P.O, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN – 682027 BY ADVS. SAM ISAAC POTHIYIL S.SURAJA TINU JOHNSON

¶13

CRL.MC NO. 3945 of 2022

¶14

-:2:-

¶15

VISHNU DAS JISHMA K.S OSHIN MENDEZ MARIA NEETHU T.J ANJITHA ANIL KUMAR ABEY GEORGE HARISH V.S. ANAGHA A.S.

¶16

RESPONDENTS/ STATE & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:

¶17

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

¶18

2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER MATTANCHERRY POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682002

¶19

3 SHAHEENA T A AGED 24 YEARS, DAUGHTER OF ABU T. K, H.NO.13/319 D, K.C. ROAD, KOCHANGADI, KOCHI, PIN - 682002 BY ADVS. SRUTHI DAS M.H.HANIS(K/264/2007) SMT T V NEEMA -SR PP

¶20

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05.01.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

CRL.MC NO. 3945 of 2022

¶22

-:3:-

¶23

O R D E R

¶24

Dated this the 5 th day of January, 2023

¶25

This Crl.M.C. has been preferred to quash Annexure-A1 F.I.R. in Crime No.1665/2021 of Mattancherry Police Station, Ernakulam on the ground of settlement between the parties.

¶26

The petitioners are the accused Nos. 1 to 5. The 3^rd respondent is the de facto complainant.

¶27

The offences alleged against the petitioners are punishable under Sections 323, 406, 420, 498-A r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code.

¶28

The 3^rd respondent entered appearance through counsel. An affidavit sworn in by her is also produced.

¶29

I have heard Sri.Sam Isaac Pothiyil, the learned counsel for the petitioners, Smt.Sruthi Das, the learned counsel for the respondent No.3 and Smt.T.V.Neema, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor.

¶30

The averments in the petition as well as the affidavit sworn in by the 3^rd respondent would show that the entire dispute between the parties has been amicably settled and the de facto

¶31

CRL.MC NO. 3945 of 2022

¶32

-:4:-

¶33

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.

¶34

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.

¶35

The dispute in the above case is purely personal in nature. No public interest or harmony will be adversely affected

¶36

CRL.MC NO. 3945 of 2022

¶37

by quashing the proceedings pursuant to Annexure-A1. The offences in question does not fall within the category of offences prohibited for compounding in terms of the pronouncement of the

¶38

Apex Court in Gian Singh (supra), Narinder Singh (supra) and Laxmi Narayan (supra).

¶39

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 F.I.R. in Crime No.1665/2021 of Mattancherry Police Station, Ernakulam hereby stands quashed.

¶40

Sd/-

¶41

DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH JUDGE

¶42

APA

¶43

CRL.MC NO. 3945 of 2022

¶44

-:6:-

¶45

APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 3945/2022

¶46

PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES

¶47

Annexure A1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE FIR ALONG WITH THE FIS IN CRIME NO.1665/2021 OF MATTANCHERRY POLICE STATION, ERNAKUALM DISTRICT Annexure A2 THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE DEFACTO COMPLAINANT/ RESPONDENT NO.3 DATED 17.06.2022

Asif Ali v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Asif Ali 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

Abdul Muneer a P Vs State of Kerala

Prasannakumar Vs State of Kerala

Harikumar Vs State of Kerala

Ashique.M Vs State of Kerala

P.v.Vijayan Vs State of Kerala

Abraham P.A Vs State of Kerala