Muhammed Shefeer vs State Of Kerala Represented By The ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 8337 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. 3940 OF 2022
       AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC 365/2021 OF JUDICIAL
                 MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS ,KOLENCHERRY
PETITIONERS/ACCUSED:

       1       MUHAMMED SHEFEER
               AGED 35 YEARS
               S/O ISMAIL,PANDARAPARAMBIL HOUSE,
               ERAVATHOOR P .O., KOCHUKADAVU,
               KAKKULLISSEERY,KUZHUR,MUKUNDAPURAM,
               THRISSUR DIST. PIN 680734, PIN - 680734
       2       ALIMA ISMAIL
               AGED 62 YEARS
               W/O ISMAIL, PANDARAPARMBIL HOUSE, KOCHUKADAVU,
               ERAVATHUR .P.O,
               VTC, THIRUMUKKULAM,ERAVATHUR,
               THRISSUR DIST. PIN -680734, PIN - 680734
       3       [email protected]
               AGED 42 YEARS
               W/O SULPHIKKAR,CHAKKALAPARAMBIL HOUSE,ASHTAMICHIRA
               P.O,MAREKKAD,
               VADAKKUBHAGHAM,ASHTAMICHIRA,
               THRISSUR DIST.-680731, PIN - 680731
               BY ADV SHEEBA MARIAM. J.

RESPONDENTS/STATE:

       1       STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC
               PROSECUTOR
               THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,ADVOCATE GENERAL OFFICE,
               HIGHCOURT OF KERALA , ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031
       2       BEEVI HASSAINAR
               D/O HASSAINAR,VATTAKKATTUKUDY,
               CHELAKULAM ROAD, VILANGU P.O.,
               ALUVA, ERNAKULAM-683561, PIN - 683561
               BY ADV ARUNDHATHY K. ALIAS

               SRI SANGEETHA RAJ-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.3940 of 2022


                                 ..2..




                               ORDER

This Crl.M.C. has been preferred to quash Annexure 2 Final

Report in C.C. No. 365/2021 on the file of the Judicial First Class

Magistrate's Court, Kolencherry on the ground of settlement

between the parties.

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

respondent No. 2 is the de facto complainant.

3. The offences alleged against the petitioners are

punishable under Sections 498A and 323 read with 34 of the IPC.

4. The respondent No.2 entered appearance through

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

5. I have heard Smt. Sheeba Mariam, the learned counsel

for the petitioners, Smt. Arundhathy K, 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 Crl.M.C.No.3940 of 2022

..3..

sworn in by the respondent No. 2 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.3940 of 2022

..4..

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 2 Final Report in

C.C. No. 365/2021 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's

Court, Kolencherry hereby stands quashed.

Sd/-

DR.KAUSER EDAPPAGATH, JUDGE RMV/01/07/2022 Crl.M.C.No.3940 of 2022

..5..

APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 3940/2022

PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure1 A1-THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR REGISTERED BY THE S.I. OF KUNNATHUNADU POLICE STATION Annexure2 A2- THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT FILED BY THE S.I. OF POLICE, KUNNATHUNADU POLICE STATION, BEFORE THE JFMC KOLENCHERY IN THE ABOVE CRIME NO. 1286 Annexure3 A3 -AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE PETITIONERS/ ACCUSED AND THE DEFACTO COMPLAINANT/ 2ND RESPONDENT Annexure4 A4-JOINT STATEMENT BY THE PETITIONERS/ ACCUSED AND THE DEFACTO COMPLAINANT/ 2ND RESPONDENT Annexure5 A5- AFFIDAVIT OF THE DEFACTO COMPLAINANT / 2ND RESPONDENT