Thajib vs State of Kerala, Represented by the Public Prosecutor

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Apr 12, 2023

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1349214

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/1349214
Court: Kerala High Court
Judge: Honourable Mr.Justice K. Babu
Decided On: Apr 12, 2023
Case Number: Crl.MC/2526/2023

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Thajib

Respondent

State of Kerala, Represented by the Public Prosecutor

Excerpt

.....that the parties have arrived at a settlement in respect of the subject matter.2. the petitioners are accused nos. 1 to 3.3. the offences alleged against the petitioners are punishable under sections 498-a & 34 of ipc.4. respondent no.2, the defacto complainant entered appearance through counsel. an affidavit sworn to by her has also been placed before this court.5. heard both sides.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 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. laxmi 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.....

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. BABU WEDNESDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF APRIL 2023 / 22ND CHAITHRA, 1945 CRL.MC NO. 2526 OF 2023 AGAINST CC 861/2022 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -I, ALAPPUZHA IN CRIME NO.449/2022 OF ALAPPUZHA POLICE STATION PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS. 1 TO 3: 1 THAJIB, AGED 28 YEARS, S/O JALEEL, DHARUL JINN HOUSE, PUNNAPRA VADAKKU 2 BALKEES BEGAM, AGED 51 YEARS, W/O JALEEL DHARUL JINN HOUSE, PUNNAPRA VADAKKU 3 RAMSI, AGED 21 YEARS D/O JALEEL DHARUL JINN HOUSE, PUNNAPRA VADAKKU BY ADV SRI.M.R.SASITH RESPONDENTS/STATE/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:

1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM,, PIN - 682031 2 REHANA, AGED 24 YEARS, D/O KABEER, KABEER MANZIL, VAZHICHERRY WARD, ALAPPUZHA,, PIN - 688011 3 SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE SOUTH POLICE STATION,ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN - 688001 BY ADV. SRI.G.SUDHEER, PP THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON

12.04.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

K.BABU, J.

-------------------------------------- --------------------------------------- Dated this the 12th day of April, 2023

ORDER

The prayer in this Crl.M.C. is to quash Annexure-A2 Final Report in Crime No.449/2022 of Alappuzha South Police Station and all further proceedings in C.C.No.861/2022 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Alappuzha, on the ground that the parties have arrived at a settlement in respect of the subject matter.

2. The petitioners are accused Nos. 1 to 3.

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

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

5. Heard both sides.

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 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.   Laxmi      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 Laxmi 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-A2 Final

Report in Crime No.449/2022 of Alappuzha South Police Station and all further proceedings in C.C.No.861/2022 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Alappuzha, stand hereby quashed. Sd/- K.BABU JUDGE VPK APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 2526/2023 PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure A1 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO. 449/2022 OF ALAPPUZHA SOUTH POLICE STATION REGISTERED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 01/06/2022 Annexure A2 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO. 449/2022 OF ALAPPUZHA SOUTH POLICE STATION, ALAPPUZHA Annexure A3 THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT

Same Court & Year Kerala · 2023 Same Parties Thajib vs State of Kerala, Represented by the Public Prosecutor Same Judge Honourable Mr.Justice K. Babu