Allowed

Musthafa v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC3 Jan 2023Crl.MC/8939/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed the final police report and criminal proceedings against the petitioner, who was charged under Sections 341, 323, and 506(1) IPC. Relying on Supreme Court precedents, the Court allowed the quashing order based on the settlement between the parties in this personal dispute.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner's Criminal Miscellaneous Case allowed; Annexure A2 Final Report quashed.

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

¶1

CRL.MC NO. 8939 OF 2022

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH

¶6

TUESDAY, THE 3^RD DAY OF JANUARY 2023 / 13TH POUSHA, 1944

¶7

CRL.MC NO. 8939 OF 2022

¶8

AGAINST C.C.NO.358/2019 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, PONNANI

¶9

PETITIONER:

¶10

MUSTHAFA

¶11

AGED 33 YEARS
S/O MUHAMMED, THARAYIL HOUSE, PURANGU,
PALLIPPADI, PONNANI TALUK,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 679584
BY ADV P.R.AJAY

¶12

RESPONDENTS:

¶13

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

¶14

2 SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE PONNANI POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM, PIN - 679586

¶15

3 SHAREEFA

¶16

AGED 38 YEARS

¶17

W/O ABDUL RASAK, PUTHARAMBATH HOUSE, THUYYAM,
EDAPPAL P.O, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 679576

¶18

R3 BY ADV RASSAL JANARDHANAN A.

¶19

R1 & R2 BY SMT T V NEEMA -SR PP

¶20

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
03.01.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

CRL.MC NO. 8939 OF 2022

¶22

¶23

O R D E R

¶24

This Crl.M.C. has been preferred to quash Annexure A2 Final

¶25

Report in C.C.No.358/2019 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Ponnani on the ground of settlement between the parties.

¶26

The petitioner is the accused. The 3^rd respondent is the

¶27

de facto complainant.

¶28

The offences alleged against the petitioner are punishable

¶29

under Sections 341, 323 and 506(1) of IPC.

¶30

The respondent No.3 entered appearance through

¶31

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

¶32

I have heard Sri.P.R.Ajay, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri.Rassal Janardhanan.A, the learned counsel for the respondent No.3 and Smt.T.V.Neema, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor.

¶33

The averments in the petition as well as the affidavit sworn in by the respondent No.3 would show that the entire

¶34

CRL.MC NO. 8939 OF 2022

¶35

¶36

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 she reported that the matter was amicably settled.

¶37

The Apex Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab [2012

¶38

(4) KLT 108 (SC)], Narinder Singh and Others v. State of Punjab

¶39

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.

¶40

The dispute in the above case is purely personal in

¶41

CRL.MC NO. 8939 OF 2022

¶42

¶43

nature. No public interest or harmony will be adversely affected by quashing the proceedings pursuant to Annexure A2 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).

¶44

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 A2 Final Report in C.C.No.358/2019 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate

¶45

Court, Ponnani hereby stands quashed.

¶46

Sd/-

¶47

DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH JUDGE

¶48

¶49

CRL.MC NO. 8939 OF 2022

¶50

¶51

APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 8939/2022

¶52

`PETITIONER ANNE`	`XURES`
`Annexure A1`	`THE TRUE COPY OF THE FIRST INFORMATION` `REPORT IN CRIME NO. 188/2019 OF PONNANI`
	`POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT DATED` `02/04/2019`
`Annexure A2`	`THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN`
	`C.C. NO. 358/2019 ON THE FILES OF`
	`JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT,` `PONNANI DATED 26/05/2019`
`Annexure A3`	`AFFIDAVIT OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT`

¶53

RESPONDENTS ANNEXURES: NIL

Musthafa v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Musthafa 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

Isubu Ziyad Vs State of Kerala

Xxx Vs State of Kerala

Philomina @ Philograce Vs State of Kerala

Abdul Rahman K.A Vs State of Kerala

Shyamalan Vs State of Kerala

Jacob @ Sabu Vs State of Kerala