Thanseel vs State Of Kerala
2022 Latest Caselaw 11880 Ker

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                              PRESENT
           THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
WEDNESDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF DECEMBER 2022/30TH AGRAHAYANA, 1944
                       CRL.MC NO. 8179 OF 2022
           AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC 1213/2018 OF
         JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -I MUVATUPUZHA
PETITIONERS/ACCUSED:

     1       THANSEEL
             AGED 28 YEARS, S/O AMEER,
             MANGALASSERIYIL HOUSE, PUTHUPPADI KARA,
             PERUMATTOM, VALADITHANDEL BHAGAM, MULAVOOR
             VILLAGE, MUVATTUPUZHA., PIN - 686673
     2       SUBAIDA
             AGED 48 YEARS
             MANGALASSERIYIL HOUSE, PUTHUPPADI KARA,
             PERUMATTOM, VALADITHANDEL BHAGAM,
             MULAVOOR VILLAGE, MUVATTUPUZHA, PIN - 686673
     3       AMEER
             AGED 57 YEARS, S/O HUSSAIN,
             MANGALASSERIYIL HOUSE,
             PUTHUPPADI KARA, PERUMATTOM,
             VALADITHANDEL BHAGAM,
             MULAVOOR VILLAGE, MUVATTUPUZHA., PIN - 686673
     4       FASIL
             AGED 22 YEARS, S/O AMEER, AGED YEARS,
             MANGALASSERIYIL HOUSE, PUTHUPPADI KARA,
             PERUMATTOM, VALADITHANDEL BHAGAM,
             MULAVOOR VILLAGE, MUVATTUPUZHA, PIN - 686673
             BY ADVS.
             P.M.RAFEEK
             V.A.NAVAS
             U.NIDHIN
             GIA MATHAI KANDATHIL


RESPONDENTS/ STATE & DE-FACTO COMPLAINANT:

     1       STATE OF KERALA
             REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
             HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031
 CRL.MC NO. 8179 of 2022

                            -:2:-

    2      SHAHANA K. SHAMS
           AGED 25 YEARS
           FORMERLY RESIDING AT VALADITHANDEL @ MANGALASSERI
           HOUSE, PERUMATTOM BHAGAM, PUTHUPPADY KARA,
           MULAVOOR VILLAGE, MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK,
           AND THERE AFTER AT A RENTAL HOUSE AT MATTATHIL
           HOUSE, MADAVANACHALIL BHAGAM, NIRAPPU KARA,
           MULAVOOR VILLAGE, MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK,
           AND NOW RESIDING AT KAROTTU HOUSE, KAVUMKARA
           KARA, VELLOORKUNNAM VILLAGE,
           MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK., PIN - 686673

           BY ADVS.
           SARA JOHN
           T.K.NAZAR(K/159/2003)

           SRI SANGEETHA RAJ-PP



     THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 21.12.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:
 CRL.MC NO. 8179 of 2022

                                    -:3:-

                                 ORDER

Dated this the 21st day of December, 2022

This Crl.M.C. has been preferred to quash Annexure-A1 Final

Report in C.C.No.1213 of 2018 on the file of the Judicial First

Class Magistrate Court-I, Muvattupuzha on the ground of

settlement between the parties.

2. The petitioners are the accused Nos. 1 to 4. The 2nd

respondent is the de facto complainant.

3. The offences alleged against the petitioners are

punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 342 r/w 34 of Indian Penal

Code.

4. The 2nd respondent entered appearance through

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

5. I have heard Sri.P.M.Rafeek, the learned counsel for

the petitioners, Smt.Sara John, the learned counsel for the

respondent No.2 and Sri.Sangeetha Raj, the learned Public

Prosecutor.

6. The averments in the petition as well as the affidavit

sworn in by the 2nd respondent would show that the entire CRL.MC NO. 8179 of 2022

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.

7. The Apex Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab

[2012 (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 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.

8. The dispute in the above case is purely personal in CRL.MC NO. 8179 of 2022

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

Laxmi Narayan (supra).

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 Final Report in

C.C.No.1213 of 2018 on the file of the Judicial First Class

Magistrate Court-I, Muvattupuzha hereby stands quashed.

Sd/-

DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH JUDGE APA CRL.MC NO. 8179 of 2022

APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 8179/2022

PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES

Annexure A1 TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT/CHARGE IN C.C NO. 1213/2018 ISSUED FROM THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT 1, MUVATTUPUZHA.

Annexure A2 TRUE COPY OF THE F.I.R. NO 1147/2017 ISSUED FROM THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT 1, MUVATTUPUZHA.

Annexure A3 COPY OF AFFIDAVIT EXECUTED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT/DE-FACTO COMPLAINANT .