Friday, 08, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Abdul Salam.M vs State Of Kerala
2023 Latest Caselaw 13602 Ker

Citation : 2023 Latest Caselaw 13602 Ker
Judgement Date : 21 December, 2023

Kerala High Court

Abdul Salam.M vs State Of Kerala on 21 December, 2023

Author: P Gopinath

Bench: P Gopinath

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                  PRESENT
                THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.
  THURSDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF DECEMBER 2023 / 30TH AGRAHAYANA, 1945
                         CRL.MC NO. 5821 OF 2023
        CRIME NO.425/2017 OF Mattannur Police Station, Kannur
 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT CC 880/2017 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF
                         FIRST CLASS ,MATTANNUR
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

            ABDUL SALAM.M,
            AGED 41 YEARS
            S/O. MOITHU, RAHMATH MANZIL, KOLARI AMSOM DESOM,
            KOLARI. P.O, KANNUR DISTRICT. PIN, PIN - 670702
            BY ADV CIBI THOMAS


RESPONDENT/STATE/COMPLAINANT/DE FACTO COMPLAINANT:

    1       STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
            HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031
    2       STATION HOUSE OFFICER,, MATTANNUR POLICE STATION,
            MATTANNUR. P.O, KANNUR DISTRICT., PIN - 670702
    3       THOTTATHIL AMINA,AGED 47 YEARS
            W/O. ABDUL RAHMAN, CHALAKANDY HOUSE, KOLARI AMSOM
            DESOM, KOLARI.P.O, KANNUR DISTRICT., PIN - 670702
            BY ADV.VIPIN NARAYAN, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
            SRI.K.PRAVEEN KUMAR- FOR RESPONDENT



     THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
21.12.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
 CRL.MC NO. 5821 OF 2023                   2



                                  ORDER

Petitioner is the accused in Crime No.425/2017 of Mattannur

Police Station, Kannur District, alleging commission of offences

under Sections 451 and 354 of the Indian Penal Code. The matter

is now pending as C.C. No.880/2017 on the file of the Judicial

First Class Magistrate Court, Mattannur.

2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would

submit that the entire issues between the petitioner and the de

facto complainant/ 3rd respondent have been settled. Learned

counsel appearing for the petitioner also refers to Annexure-II

affidavit executed by the de facto complainant/ 3rd respondent to

establish that the entire issues between the petitioner and the de

facto complainant/ 3rd respondent have been settled and the de

facto complainant does not intend to continue with the

proceedings against the petitioner.

3. The learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel

appearing for the de facto complainant/3rd respondent would

confirm that the entire issues between the petitioner and the de

facto complainant have been settled and the de facto complainant

does not wish to continue with the prosecution in any manner.

4. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner,

the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the

defacto complainant/ 3rd respondent, I am of the view that this

is fit case where the jurisdiction of this Court under Section

482 of Cr.P.C. can be invoked to quash the proceedings against

the petitioner on the ground of settlement. The principles

governing the circumstances in which this Court can exercise

the jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C to quash

criminal proceedings in respect of non-compoundable offences

are delineated by the judgments of the Supreme Court in Gian

Singh V. State of Punjab [(2012) 10 SCC 303] and State

of Madhya Pradesh V. Laxmi Narayan and Others [(2019)

5 SCC 688]. It is clear from the reading of the aforesaid

judgments that offences of heinous nature cannot be quashed

on the ground of subsequent settlement. Here, the nature of

the offences does not compel me to hold that the proceedings

cannot be quashed on the ground of settlement. No public

interest will be served by continuing with the proceedings

against the petitioner. It is unlikely that the State will be able

to successfully prosecute the case against the petitioner. In

that view of the matter, I am of the view that this is fit case

where the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of

Cr.P.C. can be invoked to quash the proceedings against the

petitioner on the ground of settlement.

Accordingly, this Crl.M.C. is allowed and all further

proceedings in C.C. No.880/2017 on the file of the Judicial First

Class Magistrate Court, Mattannur (arising out of Crime

No.425/2017 of Mattannur Police Station, Kannur District),

will stand quashed as against the petitioner.

Sd/-

GOPINATH P. JUDGE ajt

PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure I CERTIFIED COPY OF FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO.

425/2017 OF MATTANNUR POLICE STATION.

Annexure -II TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN IN BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter