Allowed

Ashique.M v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC5 Jan 2023Crl.MC/9557/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court allowed a criminal miscellaneous petition to quash a Final Report under S.482 Cr.P.C. The parties had amicably settled the dispute arising from a matrimonial nature involving Sections 498A IPC. The Court held no public interest was involved and ordered the quashing of proceedings.

What did the court decide?

CRL.M.C. No. 9557 of 2022 is allowed. Annexure I Final Report in C.C. No. 344/2022 stands quashed.

Ashique.M Vs State of Kerala — Quashing and FIR | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

CRL.MC NO. 9557 OF 2022

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
THURSDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF JANUARY 2023 / 15TH POUSHA, 1944

¶5

CRL.MC NO. 9557 OF 2022

¶6

CRIME NO.16/2022 OF Kannur Town, Kannur

¶7

AGAINST CC 344/2022 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -I,
KANNUR

¶8

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED:

¶9

1ASHIQUE.M
AGED 30 YEARS
S/O. HASHIM, M.A. HOUSE,
ATHIRAKAM, ELAYAVOOR AMSOM,
MUNDAYAD. P.O,
KANNUR DISTRICT., PIN - 670594
2SAKEENA.M,
AGED 50 YEARS
W/O. HASHIM, M.A. HOUSE,
ATHIRAKAM, ELAYAVOOR AMSOM,
MUNDAYAD. P.O,
KANNUR DISTRICT., PIN - 670594
3HASIM
AGED 58 YEARS
S/O. AYISHA, M.A. HOUSE,
ATHIRAKAM, ELAYAVOOR AMSOM,
MUNDAYAD. P.O,
KANNUR DISTRICT., PIN - 670594
BY ADVS.
CIBI THOMAS
ANSIA K.A.

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

1STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031
2STATION HOUSE OFFICER
KANNUR TOWN POLICE STATION,
KANNUR DISTRICT., PIN – 670001

¶12

CRL.MC NO. 9557 OF 2022

¶13

¶14

3AYISHATH NISHMA,
AGED 20 YEARS
D/O. MOOSA BYARI,
"M.S HOUSE", NEAR CHETHANA HOSPITAL,
PUTHOOR, SOUTH KANNADA,
KARNATAKA STATE., PIN - 574201
BY ADVS.

¶15

R1 & R2 BY SMT.T.V.NEEMA-SR.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
R3 BY SRI.K.PRAVEEN KUMAR

¶16

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

¶17

CRL.MC NO. 9557 OF 2022

¶18

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

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

¶21

Report in C.C.No.344/2022 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court I, Kannur on the ground of settlement between the parties.

¶22

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

¶23

The offences alleged against the petitioners are punishable

¶24

under Sections 498A, 420, 403, 406, 354, 354A, 506(i) and 294 r/w 34 of IPC.

¶25

The respondent No.3 entered appearance through counsel.

¶26

An affidavit sworn in by her is also produced.

¶27

I have heard Sri.Cibi Thomas, the learned counsel for the

¶28

petitioners, Sri.K.Praveen Kumar, the learned counsel for the respondent No.3 and Smt.T.V.Neema, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor.

¶29

The averments in the petition as well as the affidavit

¶30

CRL.MC NO. 9557 OF 20224

¶31

sworn in by the respondent No.3 would show that the entire 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.

¶32

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

¶33

(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

¶34

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

¶35

the case or to ensure the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of process of any Court.

¶36

The dispute in the above case is purely personal in

¶37

CRL.MC NO. 9557 OF 20225

¶38

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

¶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 I Final Report in C.C.No.344/2022 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate

¶40

Court I, Kannur hereby stands quashed.

¶41

Sd/-

¶42

DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH JUDGE

¶43

¶44

CRL.MC NO. 9557 OF 2022

¶45

¶46

APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 9557/2022

¶47

PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure -ICERTIFIED COPY OF FINAL REPORT IN CRIME
NO. 16/2022 OF KANNUR TOWN POLICE STATION
Annexure _IITRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN IN BY THE
3RD RESPONDENT.
Annexure -IIITRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DATED
20.09.2022 ENTERED INTO BETWEEN THE
PARTIES

¶48

RESPONDENTS ANNEXURES: NIL

Ashique.M v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashique.M 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

P.v.Vijayan Vs State of Kerala

Abraham P.A Vs State of Kerala

Asif Ali Vs State of Kerala