Kerala High Court
Muhammed Arshad vs The State Of Kerala on 14 June, 2022
CRL.MC NO. 1571 OF 2020 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
TUESDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 24TH JYAISHTA, 1944
CRL.MC NO. 1571 OF 2020
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC 936/2018 OF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -II, ERNAKULAM
PETITIONER/S:
MUHAMMED ARSHAD
AGED 22 YEARS
S/O. MUHAMMED IRSHAD, 9 DARUL KARAM (H), ST. MARYS
COMPOUND ARAMANPPADI, CHANGANASSERY 686 101.
BY ADV ELDHO MATHEW
RESPONDENT/S:
1 THE STATE OF KERALA
REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, ERNAKULAM 682 031.
2 ANANDA R DEV
D/O. T.P. RANADEV, ANANADHATHIL HOUSE, ERITHIPALAM
SADANAM ROAD, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT 673 006.
BY ADV A.MUHAMMED MUSTHAFA
OTHER PRESENT:
SMT T V NEEMA -SR PP
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 14.06.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:
CRL.MC NO. 1571 OF 2020 2
O R D E R
This Crl.M.C. has been preferred to quash all further
proceedings in C.C.No.936/2018 on the file of the Judicial First
Class Magistrate Court, Ernakulam on the ground of settlement
between the parties.
2. The petitioner is the accused. The 2nd respondent is the
de facto complainant.
3. The offences alleged against the petitioner are
punishable under Sections 341, 294(b), 506(1) and 509 of IPC and
Section 4 of the Kerala Prohibition of Ragging Act.
4. The respondent No.2 entered appearance through
counsel. An affidavit sworn in by her is also produced.
5. I have heard Sri.Eldho Mathew, the learned counsel for
the petitioner, Sri.A.Muhammed Musthafa, the learned counsel for
the respondent No.2 and Smt.T.V.Neema, the learned Senior Public
Prosecutor.
6. The averments in the petition as well as the affidavit
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.
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 in C.C.No.936/2018. 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. All further proceedings in
C.C.No.936/2018 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate
Court, Ernakulam hereby stands quashed.
Sd/-
DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
JUDGE
ab
APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 1571/2020
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
ANNEXURE 1 THE ORIGINAL COPY OF THE CHARGE SHEET
NO. 271/2018 OF ERNAKULAM CENTRAL POLICE
STATION, SUBMITTED BEFORE THE JUDICIAL
FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT II
ERNAKULAM DATED 04/05/2018.
ANNEXURE 2 THE TRUE AFFIDAVIT OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT
DATED 20/11/2019.
ANNEXURE 3 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR DATED
1.11.2017 IN CRIME NUMBER 3143/2017 AT
ERNAKULAM CENTRAL POLICE STATION.
RESPONDENTS ANNEXURES: NIL
