Allowed

Nazla P v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC11 Mar 2024Crl.MC/585/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge of the High Court of Kerala allowed a criminal miscellaneous petition quashing an FIR. The court was satisfied by an affidavit from the complainant indicating a settled dispute, remote chances of conviction, and the absence of serious nature of offences, deciding it was not in the public interest to continue proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Quashed Annexure-A1 FIR in Crime No.1196/2023 of Chandera Police Station, Kasargod, against all accused.

Nazla P Vs State of Kerala — Quashing and FIR | Kerala HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS

¶4

MONDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 21ST PHALGUNA, 1945

¶5

CRL.MC NO. 585 OF 2024

¶6

CRIME NO.1196/2023 OF Chandera Police Station, Kasargod

¶7

PETITIONER/S:

¶8

XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX

¶9

BY ADVS.
T.MADHU
C.R.SARADAMANI

¶10

RESPONDENT/S:

¶11

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

¶12

2STATION HOUSE OFFICER
CHANDERA POLICE STATION, KASARAGOD DISTRICT, PIN
- 671310

¶13

3 XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX

¶14

OTHER PRESENT:

¶15

Sr pp Smt Neema T.V

¶16

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 11.03.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:

¶17

¶18

Crl.M.C No.585 of 2024

¶19

C.S DIAS,J.

¶20

======================

¶21

Crl.M.C No.585 of 2024

¶22

=======================

¶23

Dated this the 11^th day of March, 2024.

¶24

ORDER

¶25

The petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to quash Annexure-A1 FIR in crime No.1196/2023 of the Chandera Police Station.

¶26

The petitioner is the first accused in the above crime, which is registered against the petitioner and the second accused, at the instance of the third respondent/petitioner’s mother, for allegedly committing the offences under Secs 317 and 109 of the Indian Penal Code, Sec.75 of the Juvenile Justice Care and Protection of Children Act, 2015 and Sec.57 of the Kerala Police Act, 2011.

¶27

The prosecution allegation is that: on 13.12.2023 at around 11.00 hours, the first accused left her house, leaving her two children aged 10 and 5 years behind, due to her relationship with the second accused, who is the

¶28

¶29

Crl.M.C No.585 of 2024

¶30

cousin brother of the first accused’s husband. Thus, the accused have committed the above offences.

¶31

Heard; Sri.T.Madhu, the learned counsel appearing

¶32

for the petitioner, Smt.Neema T.V, the learned Public Prosecutor and Sri.Thomas John, the learned counsel appearing for the third respondent.

¶33

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the subject matter in dispute between the accused and the third respondent has been amicably settled out of court. The third respondent has executed Annexure-A3 affidavit, stating that she has no objection in Annexures A1 FIR being quashed since the subject-matter in dispute between the parties has been settled. The third respondent has no subsisting grievance as against the accused in the crime. Hence the petition may be allowed.

¶34

The learned Public Prosecutor, on instructions, submitted that the Investigating Officer has ascertained and reported that the dispute between the accused and the third respondent has been settled out of Court. The

¶35

¶36

Crl.M.C No.585 of 2024

¶37

third respondent has voluntarily executed Annexure A3 affidavit without any force or compulsion of any person. Therefore, the proceedings can be quashed.

¶38

The learned counsel appearing for the third respondent also submitted that the third respondent has voluntarily signed Annexure A3 affidavit and she has no grievance in Annexure A1 FIR and all further proceedings being quashed as against the accused .

¶39

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh vs.

¶40

State of Punjab [2012 (10) SCC 303] and Prabatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and others vs. State of Gujarat and another [(2017) 9 SCC 641] has held that in the facts and circumstances of a case and to secure the ends of justice, where the High Court is satisfied that an amicable settlement has been arrived at between the parties and the offence is not serious in nature involving mental depravity, criminal proceedings may be quashed.

¶41

¶42

Crl.M.C No.585 of 2024

¶43

On a consideration of the facts, the rival submissions made across the Bar, the materials placed on record, especially Annexure-A3 affidavit sworn-in by the third respondent stating that she has no subsisting grievance against the accused in the crime, I am convinced and satisfied that this is a fit case to exercise the inherent power of this Court, particularly since the alleged offences are not serious in nature, no public interest is involved, the chances of conviction is remote, the continuation of the proceeding would only be wastage of judicial time and the settlement would augur harmony in society. Hence, I am inclined to allow the petition.

¶44

In the result, the Crl.M.C is allowed by quashing Annexure-A1 FIR and all further proceedings in crime No.1196/2023 of the Chandera Police Station, Kasargod, as against all the accused.

sd/-

sks/11.3.2024

C.S.DIAS,JUDGE

Crl.M.C No.585 of 2024

¶50

APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 585/2024

¶51

PETITIONER ANNEXURES

¶52

Annexure A4THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
9/12/2022 IN CRL.M.C.NO.8518/2022 ON THE
FILES OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT

Nazla P v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nazla P 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

Saju J @ Saju Jose, Vs State of Kerala

Philomina P.C, Vs State of Kerala

Ravi Vs State of Kerala

Sufaid Vs State of Kerala

V.S. Sooraj Ayyannar Vs State of Kerala

Sophia Naushad Khan Vs State of Kerala