Fabir vs State Of Kerala
2022 Latest Caselaw 8203 Ker

          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. 3196 OF 2022
 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC 2121/2021 OF JUDICIAL
         MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS ,PARAPPANANGADI
   CRIME NO. 654/2021 OF PARAPPANANGADI POLICE STATION


PETITIONERS/ACCUSED:

    1     FABIR
          AGED 36 YEARS
          KAPPAD VALIYAPEDIYEKKAL HOUSE, STADIUM ROAD,
          PARAPPANAGADI, IN CODE- 676303., PIN - 676303
    2     RASIYA BEEVI
          AGED 56 YEARS
          KAPPAD VALIYAPEDIYEKKAL HOUSE, STADIUM ROAD,
          PARAPPANAGADI, PIN CODE- 676303, PIN - 676303
    3     BABU MANAF
          AGED 50 YEARS
          KANNIKATTIL PUTTEKADAVATH HOUSE, PUCHAPADAM,
          VAZHAYOOR EAST, VAZHAYOOR, PIN CODE- 676303.,
          PIN - 676303
          BY ADV SAYED MANSOOR BAFAKHY THANGAL


RESPONDENTS/STATE, DE FACTO COMPLAINANT:

    1     STATE OF KERALA
          REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF
          KERALA, PIN - 682031
    2     THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PARAPPANAGADI
          POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM, PIN CODE -676303.
          REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF
          KERALA, PIN - 682031
    3     SUHANA THASNI
          AGED 26 YEARS
          KAPPATTU VALIYAPEEDIYEKKAL HOUSE, STADIUM ROAD,
          PARAPPANAGADI, MALAPURAM, PIN CODE- 676303.,
          PIN - 676303
 Crl.M.C.No.3196 of 2022


                             ..2..


           BY ADV CHRISTEENA P GEORGE

           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.3196 of 2022


                                ..3..




                              ORDER

This Crl.M.C. has been preferred to quash Annexure-1 Final

Report in C.C. No. 2121/2021 on the file of the Judicial First Class

Magistrate's Court, Parappanangadi on the ground of settlement

between the parties.

2. The petitioners are the accused Nos. 1 to 3. The

respondent No. 3 is the de facto complainant.

3. The offences alleged against the petitioners are

punishable under Sections 406, 498A read with 34 of the IPC.

4. The respondent No. 3 entered appearance through

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

5. I have heard Sri. Sayed Mansoor Bafakhy Thangal , the

learned counsel for the petitioners, Smt. Christeena P George, the

learned counsel for the respondent No.3 and Sri. P. G. Manu, the

learned Public Prosecutor.

6. The averments in the petition as well as the affidavit Crl.M.C.No.3196 of 2022

..4..

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.

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.

Crl.M.C.No.3196 of 2022

..5..

8. The dispute in the above case is purely personal in

nature. No public interest or harmony will be adversely affected by

quashing the proceedings pursuant to Annexure-1. 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-1 Final Report in

C.C. No. 2121/2021 on the file of the Judicial First Class

Magistrate's Court, Parappanangadi hereby stands quashed.

Sd/-

DR.KAUSER EDAPPAGATH, JUDGE RMV/01/07/2022 Crl.M.C.No.3196 of 2022

..6..

                  APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 3196/2022

PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure1         FINAL REPORT
Annexure2         AFFIDAVIT