Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Riyaz vs State of Kerala

RIYAZ vs State of Kerala

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Jul 21, 2023
~3 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1364168

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

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Kerala High Court
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
Crl.MC/4263/2023

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

RIYAZ

Respondent

State of Kerala

Excerpt

.....crl.m.c. has been preferred to quash annexure-1 f.i.r. in crime no.785/2023 of varkala police station, thiruvananthapuram on the ground of settlement between the parties.2. the petitioners are the accused nos. 1 and 2. the 2nd respondent is the de facto complainant.3. the offences alleged against the petitioners are punishable under sections 341 and 323 of the indian penal code.4. the 2nd respondent entered appearance through counsel. an affidavit sworn in by him is also produced.5. i have heard sri.liju m.p., the learned counsel for the petitioners, sri.vinod kumar.c, the learned counsel for the 2 nd respondent and sri.vipin narayanan, the learned senior public prosecutor.6. the averments in the petition as well as the affidavit sworn in by the 2nd respondent would show that the entire dispute between the parties has been amicably settled and the de facto -:3:-complainant has decided not to proceed with the criminal proceedings further. the learned prosecutor, on instruction, submits that the matter was enquired into through the investigating officer and a statement of the de facto complainant was also recorded wherein he reported that the matter was amicably settled.7. the apex court 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 in state of madhya pradesh v. laxmi narayan and others [(2019) 5 scc 688] has held that the high court by invoking s.482 of cr.p.c can quash criminal proceedings in relation to non compoundable offence where the parties have settled the matter between themselves notwithstanding the bar under s.320 of cr.p.c. if it is warranted in the given facts and circumstances of the case or to ensure the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of process of any court.8. the dispute in the above case is purely personal in nature. no public interest or harmony will be adversely affected by quashing the proceedings pursuant to annexure-1. the offences in question.....

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH FRIDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF JULY 2023 / 30TH ASHADHA, 1945 CRL.MC NO. 4263 OF 2023 CRIME NO.785/2023 OF VARKALA POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANATHAPURAM PETITIONERS/ ACCUSED NOS. 1 AND 2: 1 RIYAZ AGED 26 YEARS, S/O SHOOKKOOR, RAMSEENA MANZIL, ARIVALAM, VETTOOR, THIRUVANANATHAPURAM, PIN - 695307 2 SULFEEKAR R., AGED 19 YEARS, S/O RAHIM, APOOZ MANZIL, ARIVALAM, VETTOOR, THIRUVANANATHAPURAM, PIN - 695307 BY ADV LIJU. M.P RESPONDENTS/ STATE AND DEFACTO COMPLAINANT: 1 STATE OF KERALA REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031 2 NAZIM AGED 28 YEARS, S/O NAZAR, KOONAMVILAKOM, NEAR ARIVALAM MOSQUE, ARIVALAM, VETTOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695307 BY ADV VINOD KUMAR C SRI VIPIN NARAYANAN SR PP, THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21.07.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: -:2:-

ORDER

This Crl.M.C. has been preferred to quash Annexure-1 F.I.R. in Crime No.785/2023 of Varkala Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram on the ground of settlement between the parties.

2. The petitioners are the accused Nos. 1 and 2. The 2nd respondent is the de facto complainant.

3. The offences alleged against the petitioners are punishable under Sections 341 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code.

4. The 2nd respondent entered appearance through counsel. An affidavit sworn in by him is also produced.

5. I have heard Sri.Liju M.P., the learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri.Vinod Kumar.C, the learned counsel for the 2 nd respondent and Sri.Vipin Narayanan, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor.

6. The averments in the petition as well as the affidavit sworn in by the 2nd respondent would show that the entire dispute between the parties has been amicably settled and the de facto -:3:-

complainant has decided not to proceed with the criminal proceedings further. The learned Prosecutor, on instruction, submits that the matter was enquired into through the investigating officer and a statement of the de facto complainant was also recorded wherein he reported that the matter was amicably settled.

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

8. The dispute in the above case is purely personal in nature. No public interest or harmony will be adversely affected by quashing the proceedings pursuant to Annexure-1. The offences in question -:4:-

does not fall within the category of offences prohibited for compounding in terms of the pronouncement of the Apex Court in Gian Singh (supra), Narinder Singh (supra) and Laxmi Narayan (supra). For the reasons stated above, I am of the view that no purpose will be served in proceeding with the matter any further. Accordingly, the Crl.M.C. is allowed. Annexure-1 FIR in Crime No.785/2023 of Varkala Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram hereby stands quashed. Sd/- DR.KAUSER EDAPPAGATH, JUDGE AS -:5:- APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 4263/2023 PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES ANNEXURE 1 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.785/2023 OF VARKALA POLICE STATION POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM ANNEXURE 2 ORIGINAL OF THE AFFIDAVIT DATED 02.05.23 EXECUTED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT/ DEFACTO COMPLAINANT

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial