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.

Yakoob vs State of Kerala

Yakoob vs State of Kerala

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Jul 26, 2023
~4 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1369019

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/4900/2023

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Yakoob

Respondent

State of Kerala

Excerpt

.....with their 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 do not fall within the category of serious offences or heinous offences.10. the offences in the present case do not fall withinthe 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 beserved in proceeding with the matter further. resultantly, the crl.m.c is allowed. annexure-a1 fir in crime no.669 of 2023 of paravoor police station and all further proceedings pursuant to it stand hereby quashed. sd/- k.babu, judge rk appendix of crl.mc 4900/2023 petitioner annexures annexure-a1 true copy of the fir in crime no.669/2023 of paravoor police station, kollam. annexure-a2 the affidavit sworn by the 3rd respondent dated 14-06-2023. annexure-a3 the affidavit sworn by the 4th respondent dated 14-06-2023.

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. BABU WEDNESDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF JULY 2023 / 4TH SRAVANA, 1945 PETITIONER/S/ACCUSED NO. 1 & 2: 1 YAKOOB AGED 60 YEARS S/O ABDUL SALAM, KOLLAM VILAKAM, KONGAL, PARAVUR, KOLLAM, PIN - 691301 2 KHADER KHAN Y AGED 29 YEARS S/O YAKOOB, KOLLAM VILAKAM, KONGAL, PARAVUR, KOLLAM, PIN - 691301 BY ADVS. M.R.SASITH R.K.CHIRUTHA NEELANJANA NAIR BHAVANA K.K ANJANA L. SURENDRAN ANJANA SURESH.E REETHU JACOB RESPONDENT/S/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031 2 THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE PARAVUR POLICE STATION, KOLLAM, PIN - 691301 3 NOUSHAD AGED 41 YEARS S/O MUHAMMAD HANEEFA (LATE), KULACHERI VEEDU, KONGAL CHERRY, KOTTAPPURAM VILLAGE, PARAVUR, KOLLAM, PIN - 4 NADIYA AGED 38 YEARS W/O NOUSHAD, KULACHERI VEEDU, KONGAL CHERRY, KOTTAPPURAM VILLAGE, PARAVUR, KOLLAM, PIN - 691301 THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON

26.07.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

K.BABU, J.

-------------------------------------- Crl.M.C.No.4900 of 2023 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 26th day of July, 2023

ORDER

The prayer in this Crl.M.C. is to quash Annexure-A1 FIR in Crime No.669 of 2023 of Paravoor Police Station, Kollam, 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 offences alleged against the petitioners are punishable under Sections 341, 294(b), 324, 308 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

4. Respondent Nos.3 and 4, the victims entered appearance through counsel. The affidavits sworn to by them have also been placed before this Court.

5. Heard both sides.

6. I have perused the averments in the petition and the affidavits sworn to by respondent Nos.3 and 4.

7. The learned Public Prosecutor, on instructions,

submitted that the matter was enquired into through the Investigating Officer, who has taken the statements of the victims, 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 victims have 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 victims agreed to settle the matter with their 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-A1 FIR in Crime No.669 of 2023 of Paravoor Police Station and all further proceedings pursuant to it stand hereby quashed. Sd/- K.BABU, JUDGE RK APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 4900/2023 PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure-A1 TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.669/2023 OF PARAVOOR POLICE STATION, KOLLAM. Annexure-A2 THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 14-06-2023. Annexure-A3 THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 14-06-2023.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial