Ajmal Thaha vs State of Kerala

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Jan 31, 2023

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1332428

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1332428
Court: Kerala High Court
Judge: Honourable Mr.Justice K. Babu
Decided On: Jan 31, 2023
Case Number: Crl.MC/415/2023

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Ajmal Thaha

Respondent

State of Kerala

Excerpt

.....perused the averments in the petition and the affidavit sworn to by respondent no.2.7. the learned public prosecutor, on instructions,submitted that the matter was enquired into through the investigating officer, who has taken statement of the defacto complainant, and it is reported that the disputesbetween the parties have been amicably settled. the material placed before the court shows that the entire dispute between the parties has been amicably settled and the defacto complainant has decided not to proceed further. the settlement between the parties is found to be voluntary and fair. the settlement or the compromise satisfies the conscience of the court. it is seen that the victim agreed to settle the matter with her free will.8. in gian singh v. state of punjab [2012 (4) klt108 (sc)], narinder singh and others v. state of punjab and others [(2014) 6 scc 466] and state of madhya pradesh v. lakshmi narayan and others [(2019) 5 scc 688] the apex court held that the high ..4.. court invoking section 482 of cr.p.c can quash criminal proceedings in relation to non-compoundable offences, where the parties have settled the matter between themselves notwithstanding the bar under section 320 of cr.p.c., if it is warranted in the given facts and circumstances of the case, to ensure ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of any court.9. in the instant case, the dispute is purely personalin nature. there is nothing to show that public interest will be compromised by quashing the proceedings. the offence in question does not fall within the category of serious offences or heinous offences.10. the offence in the present case does not fallwithin the category of offences prohibited for granting permission to compromise in terms of the pronouncement of the apex court in gian singh (supra), narinder singh (supra) and lakshmi narayan (supra).11. this court is of the view that no purpose will beserved in proceeding with the matter further. ..5.. resultantly, the.....

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. BABU TUESDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF JANUARY 2023 / 11TH MAGHA, 1944 AGAINST THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO. 877 OF 2021 OF KANJIRAPPALLY POLICE STATION AND CC 703/2021 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -I,KANJIRAPPALLY PETITIONER: AJMAL THAHA AGED 28 YEARS S/O. TAHA, PUTHENVEETTIL HOUSE, PARATHODU MURI, EDAKUNNAM VILLAGE, PARATHODU PO, KANJIRAPPALY, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT., PIN - 686512 BY ADV A.SHAFEEK (KAYAMKULAM) RESPONDENTS/STATE AND DEFACTO COMPLAINANT: 1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031 2 ALEENA ANWAR AGED 20 YEARS W/O. AJMAL TAHA, PUTHENVEETTIL HOUSE, PARATHODU MURI, EDAKKUMMA VILLAGE, PARATHODU PO, KANJIRAPPALLY, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, NOW RESIDING AT THEKKEKANDATHIL HOUSE, CHERIYANADU PANCHAYAT, KOLLAKADAVAU PO, ALAKKODE, CHENGANOOR TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN - 689121 BY MK PUSHPALATHA, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31.01.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ..2..
K.BABU, J.
-------------------------------------- Crl.M.C.No.415 of 2023 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 31st day of January, 2023

ORDER

The prayer in this Crl.M.C is to quash the proceedings against the petitioner in C.C.No.703/2021 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Kanjirappally, on the ground that the parties have arrived at a settlement in respect of the subject matter.

2. The petitioner is the sole accused.

3. The offence alleged against the petitioner is punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code.

4. Respondent No.2 entered appearance through counsel. An affidavit sworn to by her has also been placed before the Court.

5. Heard Shri. A. Shafeek, the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for respondent No.2 and the learned Public Prosecutor. ..3..

6. I have perused the averments in the petition and the affidavit sworn to by respondent No.2.

7. The learned Public Prosecutor, on instructions,

submitted that the matter was enquired into through the Investigating Officer, who has taken statement of the defacto complainant, and it is reported that the disputes

between the parties have been amicably settled. The material placed before the Court shows that the entire dispute between the parties has been amicably settled and the defacto complainant has decided not to proceed further. The settlement between the parties is found to be voluntary and fair. The settlement or the compromise satisfies the conscience of the Court. It is seen that the victim agreed to settle the matter with her free will.

8. 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 State of Madhya Pradesh v. Lakshmi Narayan and Others [(2019) 5 SCC 688] the Apex Court held that the High ..4.. Court invoking Section 482 of Cr.P.C can quash criminal proceedings in relation to non-compoundable offences, where the parties have settled the matter between themselves notwithstanding the bar under Section 320 of Cr.P.C., if it is warranted in the given facts and circumstances of the case, to ensure ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court.

9. In the instant case, the dispute is purely personal

in nature. There is nothing to show that public interest will be compromised by quashing the proceedings. The offence in question does not fall within the category of serious offences or heinous offences.

10. The offence in the present case does not fall

within the category of offences prohibited for granting permission to compromise in terms of the pronouncement of the Apex Court in Gian Singh (supra), Narinder Singh (supra) and Lakshmi Narayan (supra).

11. This Court is of the view that no purpose will be

served in proceeding with the matter further. ..5.. Resultantly, the Crl.M.C is allowed. All further proceedings in C.C.No.703/2021 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Kanjirappally stand hereby quashed. Sd/- K. BABU, JUDGE kkj ..6.. APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 415/2023 PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure 1 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN C.C. NO. 703/2021 PENDING BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT I, KANJIRAPPALLY Annexure 2 TRUE COPY OF THE SETTLEMENT DATED IN OP NO. 1590/2021 Annexure 3 THE ORIGINAL OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT

Same Court & Year Kerala · 2023 Same Parties Ajmal Thaha vs State of Kerala Same Judge Honourable Mr.Justice K. Babu