Allowed

Shajahan v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC19 Jan 2023Crl.MC/73/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order quashes an FIR registered against the petitioner for matrimonial offences under Sections 498-A IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act. The High Court allowed the criminal miscellaneous petition on the ground of amicable settlement between parties, relying on Supreme Court precedents permitting quashing where public interest is not affected.

What did the court decide?

Crl.M.C. No. 73 of 2023 allowed; Annexure-A1 FIR in Crime No. 627/2022 of Vanitha Police Station, Pathanamthitta stands quashed.

Shajahan Vs State of Kerala — Dowry and Cruelty | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 19^TH DAY OF JANUARY 2023 / 29TH POUSHA, 1944

¶5

CRL.MC NO. 73 OF 2023

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN FIR 627/2022 OF CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE PATHANAMTHITTA

¶7

PETITIONER/ ACCUSED:

¶8

SHAJAHAN AGED 38 YEARS ANWAAJ MANZIL, KANNAMKODE, KANNANKODE, ADOOR.P.O, ADOOR VILLAGE, ADOOR TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN - 691523 BY ADVS. V.SETHUNATH SREEGANESH U. OBEID ABDUL MAJEED

¶9

RESPONDENT/DE-FACTO COMPLAINANT/ STATE:

¶10

1 STATE OF KERALA

¶11

REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031 2 SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE VANITHA POLICE STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN - 689645 3 SHEMI AGED 37 YEARS ANWAAJ MANZIL, KANNAMKODE, KANNANKODE, ADOOR.P.O, ADOOR VILLAGE, ADOOR TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN - 691523 BY ADVS. V.R.MANORANJAN (MUVATTUPUZHA)

¶12

SMT.T.V.NEEMA SR.P.P

¶13

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19.01.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

CRL.MC NO. 73 of 2023

¶15

-:2:-

¶16

O R D E R

¶17

Dated this the 19 th day of January, 2023

¶18

This Crl.M.C. has been preferred to quash Annexure-A1 FIR in Crime No. 627/2022 of Vanitha Police Station, Pathanamthitta on the ground of settlement between the parties.

¶19

The petitioner is the accused. The 3^rd respondent is the de facto complainant.

¶20

The offences alleged against the petitioner are punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 324, 506 and 294(b) of Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

¶21

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

¶22

I have heard Sri.V.Sethunath, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri.V.R.Manoranjan, the learned counsel for the respondent No.3 and Smt.T.V.Neema, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor.

¶23

The averments in the petition as well as the affidavit sworn in by the 3^rd respondent would show that the entire dispute

¶24

CRL.MC NO. 73 of 2023

¶25

-:3:-

¶26

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 she reported that the matter was amicably settled.

¶27

The Apex Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab [2012 (4) KLT 108 (SC)], Narinder Singh and Others v. State

¶28

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.

¶29

The dispute in the above case is purely personal in

¶30

CRL.MC NO. 73 of 2023

¶31

nature. No public interest or harmony will be adversely affected 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 Apex Court in Gian Singh (supra), Narinder Singh (supra) and

¶32

Laxmi Narayan (supra).

¶33

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 FIR in Crime No. 627/2022 of Vanitha Police Station, Pathanamthitta hereby stands quashed.

¶34

Sd/-

¶35

DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH JUDGE

¶36

APA

¶37

CRL.MC NO. 73 of 2023

¶38

-:5:-

¶39

APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 73/2023