Nizam vs State of Kerala

NIZAM vs State of Kerala

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Feb 16, 2023

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1334841

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/1334841
Court: Kerala High Court
Judge: Honourable Mr.Justice K. Babu
Decided On: Feb 16, 2023
Case Number: Crl.MC/784/2023

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

NIZAM

Respondent

State of Kerala

Excerpt

.....have arrived at a settlement in respect of the subject matter.2. the petitioners are accused nos.1 & 2.3. the offences alleged against the petitioners are punishable under sections 498-a, 323, 324, 326 & 34 of ipc.4. respondent no.3, the defacto complainant entered appearance through counsel. an affidavit sworn to by her has also been placed before the court.5. heard both sides.6. i have perused the averments in the petition and the affidavit sworn to by respondent no.3.7. the learned public prosecutor, on instructions, submittedthat the matter was enquired into through the investigating officer, who has taken statement of the defacto complainant, and it is reported that the dispute between the parties has beenamicably 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 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 innature. there is nothing to show that public interest will be compromised by quashing the proceedings. the offences in question do not fall within the category of serious offences or.....

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. BABU THURSDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2023 / 27TH MAGHA, 1944 CRL.MC NO. 784 OF 2023 AGAINST C.C.No. 339/2019 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS - I, KARUNAGAPPALLY PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NoS 1 & 2:

1 NIZAM AGED 37 YEARS S/O. YOUSUF KUNJU, AGED 37 YEARS, MEENATHEL KANNANKARA HOUSE, AADHINADU THEKKUMMURIYIL, KARUNAGAPPALLY TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 690542 2 JAMEELA AGED 57 YEARS, W/O. YOUSUF KUNJU, MEENATHEL KANNANKARA HOUSE, AADHINADU THEKKUMMURIYIL, KARUNAGAPPALLY TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 690542 BY ADV K.RAKESH

RESPONDENTS/STATE & COMPLAINANT:

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI, PIN - 682031 2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER KARUNAGAPPALLY POLICE STATION, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 690544 3 SHAMNA AGED 35 YEARS W/O. NIZAM, KANNAKARA VEEDU, ADINADU SOUTH MURI, ADINADU VILLAGE, KARUNAGAPPALLY TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT PIN - 690542 BY ADV. G.SUDHEER (PP)

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16.02.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

K.BABU, J.

-------------------------------------- --------------------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of February, 2023

ORDER

The prayer in this Crl.M.C. is to quash Annexure A Final Report in Crime No.2021/2018 of Karunagappally Police Station, and all further proceedings in C.C.No.339/2019 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Karunagappally on the ground that the parties have arrived at a settlement in respect of the subject matter.

2. The petitioners are accused Nos.1 & 2.

3. The offences alleged against the petitioners are punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 324, 326 & 34 of IPC.

4. Respondent No.3, the defacto complainant entered appearance through counsel. An affidavit sworn to by her has also been placed before the Court.

5. Heard both sides.

6. I have perused the averments in the petition and the affidavit sworn to by respondent No.3.

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 dispute between the parties has 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 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 offences in question do not fall within the category of serious offences or heinous offences.

10. The offences in the present case do 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. Resultantly, the Crl.M.C is allowed. Annexure A Final report

in Crime No.2021/2018 of Karunagappally Police Station and all further proceedings in C.C.No.339/2019 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Karunagappally stand hereby quashed. Sd/- K.BABU, JUDGE TR APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 784/2023 PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure A A TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO.2021/2018 OF THE KARUNAGAPPALLY POLICE STATION Annexure B AFFIDAVIT SWORN TO BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT ON 2-12-2022

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