Allowed

Arafath Ka v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC18 Oct 2023Crl.MC/4110/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court exercised its intrinsic jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings against three accused persons who were alleged to have committed offences under Sections 354 and 448 IPC. The court observed that the issues between the accused and the complainant had been fully settled and that continuing the prosecution would serve no public interest.

What did the court decide?

Criminal M.C. allowed; proceedings in C.C. No.98/2021 against petitioners stood quashed.

Arafath Ka Vs State of Kerala — Quashing and FIR | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2023 / 26TH ASWINA, 1945

¶5

CRL.MC NO. 4110 OF 2023

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT CR 8/2021 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -V,KOZHIKODE

¶7

PETITIONER/ACCUSED 1, 2 AND 3:

¶8

1 ARAFATH KA, AGED 26 YEARS S/O ABDUL AZEEZ MARHABA (HOUSE) MALAPARAMBA HOSING COLONY, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673009

¶9

2 SHAHUL HAMEED E.K, AGED 43 YEARS S/O ANTHU ELLIKKKAL (HOUSE) NALLALAM (PO), KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673009

¶10

3 NISHAM A.P, AGED 23 YEARS S/O FIROZ MAMMIKKAVU VEETTIL NALLALAM (PO) , KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673009

¶11

BY ADVS.
P.V.ANOOP

¶12

PHIJO PRADEESH PHILIP

¶13

RESPONDENT/STATE AND COMPLAINANT:

¶14

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

¶15

2 RINSHA PARVEEN W/O NASIL SALEEM MALABAR VILLA,ORKID RESIDENCE HOUSE NO.59,THACHAMBALAM ROAD, AREEKKAD (PO), NALLALAM KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN - 673027

¶16

BY ADV NAVJYOTH S.

¶17

SRI NOUSHAD K.A. (SR PP)

¶18

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
18.10.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

CRL.MC NO. 4110 OF 2023 2

¶20

ORDER

¶21

Petitioners are the accused in Crime No.8/2021 of Nallalam Police Station, Kozhikode District, alleging commission of offences under Sections 448, 323 and 354 r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The matter is now pending as C.C. No.98/2021 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-V, Kozhikode.

¶22

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the entire issues between the petitioners and the de facto complainant/ 2^nd respondent have been settled. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners also refers to Annexure-C affidavit executed by the de facto complainant/ 2^nd respondent to establish that the entire issues between the petitioners and the de facto complainant/ 2^nd respondent have been settled and the de facto complainant does not intend to continue with the proceedings against the petitioners.

¶23

The learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel appearing for the de facto complainant/ 3^rd respondent would confirm that the entire issues between the petitioners and the de facto complainant have been settled and the de facto complainant

¶24

CRL.MC NO. 4110 OF 2023 3

¶25

does not wish to continue with the prosecution in any manner.

¶26

Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the defacto complainant/ 2^nd respondent, I am of the view that this is fit case where the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. can be invoked to quash the proceedings against the petitioners on the ground of settlement. The principles governing the circumstances in which this Court can exercise the jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C to quash criminal proceedings in respect of non-compoundable offences is delineated by the judgments of the Supreme Court in Gian Singh V. State of Punjab [(2012) 10 SCC 303] and State of Madhya Pradesh V. Laxmi Narayan and Others [(2019) 5 SCC 688] . It is clear from the reading of the aforesaid judgments that offences of heinous nature cannot be quashed on the ground of subsequent settlement. Here, the nature of the offences does not compel me to hold that the proceedings cannot be quashed on the ground of settlement. No public interest will be served by continuing with the proceedings against the petitioners. It is unlikely that the State will be able to successfully prosecute the case against the petitioners. In that view of the matter, I

¶27

CRL.MC NO. 4110 OF 2023 4

¶28

am of the view that this is fit case where the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. can be invoked to quash the proceedings against the petitioners on the ground of settlement.

¶29

Accordingly, this Crl.M.C. is allowed and all further proceedings in C.C. No.98/2021 on the file the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-V, Kozhikode (arising out of Crime No.08/2021 of Nallalam Police Station, Kozhikode District), will stand quashed as against the petitioners.

¶30

Sd/-

¶31

GOPINATH P. JUDGE

¶32

ajt

¶33

CRL.MC NO. 4110 OF 2023 5

¶34

APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 4110/2023

¶35

PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure ATRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO. 08/2021 OF
NALLALAM POLICE STATION
Annexure BCERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT ALONG WITH
MEMORANDUM OF EVIDENCE IN CRIME NO.8 OF 2021
WHICH IS NOW PENDING AGAINST THE PETITIONERS
AS C.C.NO.98/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE JUDICIAL
FIRST-CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-V KOZHIKODE
Annexure CTRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE
SECOND RESPONDENT DATED 10.05.2023

Arafath Ka v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arafath Ka 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

Faisal Vs the State of Kerala

Anju Antony Vs Dr. Wesly K. Abraham

Jaseer Vs State of Kerala

Muhammed Faisal Vs State of Kerala

Sooraj Babu Vs State of Kerala

Fazil.K.P Vs State of Kerala