Habeeb @ Rinshad vs State Of Kerala
2022 Latest Caselaw 8591 Ker

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                          PRESENT
        THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF JULY 2022 / 15TH ASHADHA, 1944
                  CRL.MC NO. 3891 OF 2022
  AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC 860/2019 OF JUDICIAL
            FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-I,RANNI
PETITIONERS/ACCUSED Nos. 1, 2 & 3:

    1     HABEEB @ RINSHAD
          AGED 34 YEARS
          S/O.IBRAHIMKUTTY,
          OLIKAL PUTHALIL HOUSE, OLAKKULAM,
          VECHUCHIRA P.O., KOLLAMULA VILLAGE,
          RANNI TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN - 686
          511., PIN - 686511
    2     IBRAHIMKUTTY
          AGED 53 YEARS
          S/O.FATHIMA BEEVI,
          OLIKAL PUTHALIL HOUSE, OLAKKULAM,
          VECHUCHIRA P.O., KOLLAMULA VILLAGE,
          RANNI TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN - 686
          511.
          PIN - 686511
    3     ASHRAF
          AGED 29 YEARS
          S/O.IBRAHIMKUTTY,
          OLIKAL PUTHALIL HOUSE, OLAKKULAM,
          VECHUCHIRA P.O., KOLLAMULA VILLAGE,
          RANNI TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN - 686
          511.
          , PIN - 686511
          BY ADV VINCENT JOSEPH


RESPONDENTS/STATE & DE FACTO COMPLAINANT:

    1     STATE OF KERALA
          STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC
          PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM -
          682031, PIN - 682031
 Crl. M.C. No. 3891 of 2022

                                ..2..



     2       NUJUMA
             AGED 28 YEARS
             W/O.HABEEB,
             OLIKAL PUTHALIL HOUSE, OLAKKULAM,
             VECHUCHIRA P.O., KOLLAMULA VILLAGE,
             RANNI TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN - 686
             511
             , PIN - 686511
             BY ADVS.
             KEERTHI B. CHANDRAN
             V.N.MADHUSUDANAN(M-481)

             SMT T V NEEMA -SR PP


         THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
06.07.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
 Crl. M.C. No. 3891 of 2022

                                  ..3..




                                ORDER

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

Final Report in Crime No. 636/2018 of Vechuchira police station on

the ground of settlement between the parties.

2. The petitioners are the accused Nos. 1, 2 & 3. The

respondent No. 2 is the de facto complainant.

3. The offences alleged against the petitioners are

punishable under Sections 294(b), 323, 324, 498A 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 Sri. Vincent Joseph, the learned counsel for

the petitioners, Smt. Keerthi B Chandran, the learned counsel for the

respondent No.2 and Smt. T.V. Neema, the learned Public

Prosecutor.

6. The averments in the petition as well as the affidavit Crl. M.C. No. 3891 of 2022

..4..

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. 3891 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

Crime No. 636/2018 of Vechuchira police station hereby stands

quashed.

Sd/-

DR.KAUSER EDAPPAGATH, JUDGE RMV Crl. M.C. No. 3891 of 2022

..6..

APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 3891/2022

PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure-1 CERTIFIED COPY OF FINAL REPORT IN FIR NO. 636/J2018 OF VECHUCHIRA POLICE STATION SUBMITTED BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, RANNI DATED 1.6.2020 Annexure-2 AFFIDAVIT SIGNED BY THE DEFACTO COMPLAINANT/2ND RESPONDENT DATED 13.6.2022