Shafeer vs State of Kerala

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Apr 05, 2022

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1439637

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/1439637
Court: Kerala High Court
Judge: Honourable Dr. Justice Kauser Edappagath
Decided On: Apr 05, 2022
Case Number: Crl.MC/9/2022

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Shafeer

Respondent

State of Kerala

Excerpt

.....police station, thiruvananthapuram now pending as c.c. no.173/2020 of judicial first class magistrate court-i, attingal on the ground of settlement between the parties.2. the petitioners are the accused nos.1 to 3. the 2 nd respondent is the de facto complainant.3. the offence alleged against the petitioners are under section 498(a) of the ipc.4. the 2nd respondent entered appearance through counsel. an affidavit sworn in by her is also produced.5. i have heard sri.p.anoop(mulavana), the learned counsel for the petitioners, smt.tintu mol.p.r, the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent and smt.t.v.neema, the learned senior public prosecutor.6. the averments in the petition as well as the affidavit sworn in by the 2 nd respondent would show that the ..3..entire dispute between the parties has been amicably settled and the de facto complainant has decided not to proceed with the crime 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 she 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 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 ends of justice or to prevent abuse of process of any court...4..8. the dispute in the above case is purely personal innature. no public interest or harmony will be adversely affected by quashing the proceedings pursuant to annexure- a1. the offence in question does not fall within the category of offences.....

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH TUESDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF APRIL 2022 / 15TH CHAITHRA, 1944 CRL.MC NO. 9 OF 2022 CRIME NO.790/2019 OF NAGAROOR POLICE STATION, Thiruvananthapuram AGAINST THE ORDER IN CC 173/2020 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -I,ATTINGAL PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 TO 3:

1 SHAFEER, AGED 37 YEARS, S/O. RASHEED, BAITHULNOOR HOUSE, CHERUKKARAM, KODUVAZHANNOOR VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT 2 RASHEED, AGED 65 YEARS, S/O. MUSHTAFA, BAITHULNOOR HOUSE, CHERUKKARAM, KODUVAZHANNOOR VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT 3 NAFEESATH, AGED 55 YEARS, D/O. SAHADOONATHU BEEVI, BAITHULNOOR HOUSE, CHERUKKARAM, KODUVAZHANNOOR VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT BY ADV P.ANOOP (MULAVANA)

RESPONDENTS/STATE, DE FAFCTO COMPLAINANT: 1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM 682 031 2 THANSEENA, AGED 29 YEARS, D/O. SABEENA, THANSEENA MANZIL, KARAMOODU, THONAKKAL DESOM, THONAKKAL VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT BY ADV TINTU MOL P.R.-R2 SMT.T.V.NEEMA -SR.PP THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05.04.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ..2..

ORDER

Dated this the 05th day of April, 2022 This Crl.M.C. has been preferred to quash Annexure-A1 Final Report in Crime No.790/2019 of the Nagaroor Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram now pending as C.C. No.173/2020 of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Attingal on the ground of settlement between the parties.

2. The petitioners are the accused Nos.1 to 3. The 2 nd respondent is the de facto complainant.

3. The offence alleged against the petitioners are under Section 498(A) of the IPC.

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

5. I have heard Sri.P.Anoop(Mulavana), the learned counsel for the petitioners, Smt.Tintu Mol.P.R, the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent and Smt.T.V.Neema, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor.

6. The averments in the petition as well as the affidavit sworn in by the 2 nd respondent would show that the ..3..

entire dispute between the parties has been amicably settled and the de facto complainant has decided not to proceed with the crime 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 she 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 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 ends of justice or to prevent abuse of process of any Court.

..4..

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- A1. The offence in question 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 further. Accordingly, the Crl.M.C. is allowed. Annexure-A1 Final Report in Crime No.790/2019 of the Nagaroor Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram now pending as C.C. No.173/2020 of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Attingal stands hereby quashed.

Sd/- DR.KAUSER EDAPPAGATH, JUDGE ded/05.04.2022 ..5.. APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 9/2022 PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure A1 TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO. 790/2019 OF THE NAGAROOR POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT Annexure A2 TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS : NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE

Same Court & Year Kerala · 2022 Same Parties Shafeer vs State of Kerala Same Judge Honourable Dr. Justice Kauser Edappagath