Kerala High Court
Ashkar M.A vs Rafeena K.Y on 1 July, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
FRIDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF JULY 2022 / 10TH ASHADHA, 1944
CRL.MC NO. 3316 OF 2022
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC 1862/2021 OF JUDICIAL
FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, MATTANCHERY
CRIME NO. 1406/2021 OF FORT KOCHI POLICE STATION
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
ASHKAR M.A
AGED 43 YEARS
S/O ABDUL KAREEM,
H.NO.2/1022, THURUTHI COLONY, KOCHI PIN -
682001
BY ADV M.H.HANIS
RESPONDENTS/DE FACTO COMPLAINANT & STATE:
1 RAFEENA K.Y
AGED 39 YEARS
D/O YOUSAFF K.K,
H.NO.2/1022, THURUTHI COLONY,KOCHI, PIN -
682001
2 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC
PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA
STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, KOCHI, PIN - 682031
BY ADV P.A.MUJEEB
SRI P G MANU-SR PP
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 01.07.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED
THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.M.C.No.3316 of 2022
..2..
ORDER
This Crl.M.C. has been preferred to quash Annexure A Final
Report in C.C. No. 1862/2021 on the file of the Judicial First Class
Magistrate's Court, Mattancherry on the ground of settlement
between the parties.
2. The petitioner is the sole accused. The respondent No. 1
is the de facto complainant.
3. The offences alleged against the petitioner is punishable
under Sections 323 and 324 of the IPC.
4. The respondent No. 1 entered appearance through
counsel. An affidavit sworn in by her is also produced.
5. I have heard Sri. M.H. Hanis, the learned counsel for the
petitioner, Sri. P.A. Mujeeb, the learned counsel for the respondent
No.1 and Sri. P.G. Manu, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor.
6. The averments in the petition as well as the affidavit
sworn in by the respondent No.1 would show that the entire dispute
Crl.M.C.No.3316 of 2022
..3..
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.M.C.No.3316 of 2022
..4..
nature. No public interest or harmony will be adversely affected by
quashing the proceedings pursuant to Annexure A. 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).
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 A Final Report in
C.C. No. 1862/2021 on the file of the Judicial First Class
Magistrate's Court, Mattancherry hereby stands quashed.
Sd/-
DR.KAUSER EDAPPAGATH,
JUDGE
RMV/01/07/2022
Crl.M.C.No.3316 of 2022
..5..
APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 3316/2022
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
AnnexureA CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN
C.C.NO.1862/2021 ON THE FILE OF
JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT,
MATTANCHERRY ARISING FROM CRIME
NO.1406/2021 OF FORT KOCHI POLICE
STATION, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT
AnnexureB AFFIDAVIT OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT
