K.B.Abdul Majeed vs State Of Kerala
2021 Latest Caselaw 12044 Ker

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                             PRESENT

          THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS

     FRIDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF APRIL 2021 / 26TH CHAITHRA, 1943

                    Crl.MC.No.3671 OF 2020(H)

 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN LPC 48/2011 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE
                    OF FIRST CLASS -II,HOSDRUG

       CRIME NO.342/2005 OF Bekal Police Station , Kasargod


PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1:

             K.B.ABDUL MAJEED
             AGED 44 YEARS
             S/O. ABDULLA, THAYAL THOTTIYIL HOUSE, THOTTI,
             PALLIKKARA VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGOD
             DISTRICT.

             BY ADV. SRI.A.ARUNKUMAR

RESPONDENTS/STATE/COMPLAINANT:

      1      STATE OF KERALA
             REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF
             KERALA, ERNAKULAM 682 031


      2      NASEERA T,
             AGED 38 YEARS
             D/O. MUHAMMED KUNHI (LATE R/AT RAMSHEED MANZIL,
             MEENAPPES, HOSDURG VILLAGE, NOW R/AT BISMILLAH
             MANZIL, KANDAMKADAVU, AVIYIL, KANHANGAD, KANHANGAD
             VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGOD 671 315

             R2 BY ADV. VIPIN T JOSE

OTHER PRESENT:

             SRI RAMESH CHAND PP

     THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
16.04.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
 Crl.MC.No.3671 OF 2020(H)

                                    2




                                ORDER

Dated this the 16th day of April 2021

The petitioner is the 1 st accused in Crime No.342/2005 of Bekal

Police Station and accused in L.P.C.No.48 of 2011 on the files of

Judicial First Class Magistrate II, Hosdurg committed the offences

punishable under Sections 498A r/w 34 of IPC

2. The de facto complainant is the 2 nd respondent herein,

who has appeared through Adv.Vipin T.Jose and has filed an affidavit

as Annexure AIII stating that the matter has been amicably settled

and that she has no existing grievance against the petitioner. The

offences alleged are purely personal in nature and no serious prejudice

will be caused to the public if the settlement is recognised. Further,

possibility of the case ending in conviction is also very remote, if not

impossible due to the said settlement. Recognising the said

settlement augurs better in the interests of all.

3. Reliance can be placed on the decisions in Gian Singh

v. State of Punjab [2012 (4) KLT 108], Narinder Singh and

Others v. State of Punjab and Another [(2014) 6 SCC 466)] and

Yogendra Yadav and Others v. State of Jharkhand [(2014) 9 SCC Crl.MC.No.3671 OF 2020(H)

653] for recognizing the settlement entered into by the parties.

4. In view of the settlement arrived at between the

petitioner and the 2nd respondent, the petitioner is entitled to get the

proceedings quashed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. It is also

pertinent to note that the petitioner does not have any criminal

antecedents and no public interest is involved.

In the result, the Crl.M.C. is allowed and all proceedings

against the petitioner in L.P.C. No.48/2011 on the files of Judicial First

Class Magistrate II, Hosdurg arising out of Crime No.342/2005 of

Bekal Police Station stands quashed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.

Sd/-

BECHU KURIAN THOMAS

JUDGE

Jm/ Crl.MC.No.3671 OF 2020(H)

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

ANNEXURE A1 A TRUE COPY OF THE F.I.R IN CRIME NO. 342 OF 2015 OF BEKAL POLICE STATION

ANNEXURE AII A TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO. 342 OF 2015 OF BEKAL POLICE STATION.

ANNEXURE AIII A TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN TO BY