Riswan, vs State of Kerala

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Feb 27, 2023

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1336767

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/1336767
Court: Kerala High Court
Judge: Honourable Mr.Justice K. Babu
Decided On: Feb 27, 2023
Case Number: Crl.MC/1039/2023

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Riswan,

Respondent

State of Kerala

Excerpt

.....have arrived at a settlement in respect of the subject matter.2. the petitioners are accused nos. 1 and 2.3. the offence alleged against the petitioners are punishable under section 363 r/w section 34 of indian penal code.4. respondent no.2, the defacto complainant entered appearance through counsel. an affidavit sworn to by him has also been placed before the court.5. heard shri. p.jinish paul, the learned counsel for ..3.. the petitioners, the learned counsel for respondent no.2 and the learned public prosecutor.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 disputebetween 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 his 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 ..4..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 personalin nature. there is nothing to show that public.....

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. BABU MONDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2023 / 8TH PHALGUNA, IN CC 794/2022 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -I, THAMARASSERY CRIME NO.434 OF 2022 OF KODUVALLY POLICE STATION PETITIONER/S: 1 RISWAN, AGED 22 YEARS S/O.ASHRAF, PUNNAD (H), ULIYIL P.O, MATTANNOOR, IRITTY, KANNUR-, PIN - 670702 2 MUHAMMED HAFIS AGED 22 YEARS S/O.MUSTHAFFA, DHARUL AMMAN (H), NARAYANPARA, ULIYIL P.O, MATTANNOOR, IRITTY, KANNUR-, PIN - BY ADV P.JINISH PAUL RESPONDENT/S: 1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031 2 NOUSHADALI K, AGED 43 YEARS S/O.AHAMMAD KOYA, KANJIRATTUKUNNUMMAL(H), KODUVALLY P.O., KOZHIKODE-, PIN - 673572 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT PUSHPA LETHA THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27.02.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ..2..
K.BABU, J.
-------------------------------------- Crl.M.C.No.1039 of 2023 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 27th day of February, 2023

ORDER

The prayer in this Crl.M.C. is to quash Annexure A1 Final Report in Crime No.434 of 2022 of Koduvally Police Station and all further proceedings in C.C.No.794 of 2022 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Thamarassery, on the ground that the parties have arrived at a settlement in respect of the subject matter.

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

3. The offence alleged against the petitioners are punishable under Section 363 r/w Section 34 of Indian Penal Code.

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

5. Heard Shri. P.Jinish Paul, the learned counsel for ..3.. the petitioners, the learned counsel for respondent No.2 and the learned Public Prosecutor.

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 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 his 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 ..4..

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 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). ..5..

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 A1

Final Report in Crime No.434 of 2022 of Koduvally Police Station and all further proceedings in C.C.No.794 of 2022 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Thamarassery, stand hereby quashed. Sd/- K.BABU, JUDGE kkj ..6.. APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 1039/2023 PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure A1 A CERTIFIED COPY OF FINAL REPORT DATED 30.10.2022 IN C.C. NO.794/2022 PENDING ON THE FILES OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-I, THAMARASERRY Annexure A2 THE AFFIDAVIT DATED 27.01.2023 SWORN BY THE 2 ND RESPONDENT

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