Nawaf, vs State of Kerala,

NAWAF, vs State of Kerala,

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Mar 30, 2022

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1444273

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/1444273
Court: Kerala High Court
Judge: Honourable Dr. Justice Kauser Edappagath
Decided On: Mar 30, 2022
Case Number: Crl.MC/439/2022

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

NAWAF,

Respondent

State of Kerala,

Excerpt

.....annexure a1 charge sheet dated 22.02.2015 in c.c. no.1235/2015 of the 6th judicial first class magistrate court-ii, kollam on the ground of settlement between the parties.2. the petitioners are the accused nos.1 to 4. the 3rd respondent is the de facto complainant.3. the offence alleged against the petitioners are under sections 323 of the ipc and 31(1) r/w. 18 of the dv act.4. the 3rd respondent entered appearance through counsel. an affidavit sworn in by her is also produced.5. i have heard sri.john varghese, the learned counsel for the petitioners, sri.cimil cherian kottalil, the learned counsel for the 3rd 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 3 rd respondent would show that the ..4..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...5..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 offences in question do not fall.....

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH WEDNESDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF MARCH 2022/ 9TH CHAITHRA, 1944 CRL.MC NO. 439 OF 2022 CC 1235/2015 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -II, KOLLAM PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 TO 4:

1 NAWAF, AGED 38 YEARS, S/O.A.R. HASHIR, NAJIYA HOUSE, AZAD NAGAR-2, PALLIMUKKU, VADAKKEVILA P.O., KOLLAM-691010. 2 RAZEENA BEEVI, W/O.A.R. HASHIR, NAJIYA HOUSE, AZAD NAGAR-2, PALLIMUKKU, VADAKKEVILA P.O., KOLLAM-691010. 3 NIYAZ HASHIR, S/O.A.R. HASHIR, NAJIYA HOUSE, AZAD NAGAR-2, PALLIMUKKU, VADAKKEVILA P.O, KOLLAM-691010. 4 SHAMEER SALIM, S/O. SALIM, RAZEENA MANZIL, MUNDAKKAD VILLAGE, VADAKKEVILA P.O., KOLLAM- 691010. BY ADVS. JOHN VARGHESE SONU AUGUSTINE

RESPONDENTS/STATE, COMPLAINANT & DE FACTO COMPLAINANT: 1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM- 682031. 2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER,ERAVIPURAM POLICE STATION, ERAVIPURAM P.O, KOLLAM DISTRICT 691011 3 SHIMA, D/O. SABOORA BEEVI, CHARUVILA VEEDU, SILPA NAGAR-35, AYUATHIL P.O, KOLLAM DISTRICT- 691021. ..2.. BY ADVS. CIMIL CHERIAN KOTTALIL ENOCH DAVID SIMON JOEL(K/925/2009) S.SREEDEV(K/1219/2006) RONY JOSE(K/705/2012) LEO LUKOSE(K/001131/2016) SUZANNE KURIAN(K/001654/2018) K.P.JABBAR(K/145/1985) THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30.03.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ..3..

ORDER

Dated this the 30th day of March, 2022 This Crl.M.C. has been preferred to quash Annexure A1 charge sheet dated 22.02.2015 in C.C. No.1235/2015 of the 6th Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Kollam on the ground of settlement between the parties.

2. The petitioners are the accused Nos.1 to 4. The 3rd respondent is the de facto complainant.

3. The offence alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 323 of the IPC and 31(1) r/w. 18 of the DV Act.

4. The 3rd respondent entered appearance through counsel. An affidavit sworn in by her is also produced.

5. I have heard Sri.John Varghese, the learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri.Cimil Cherian Kottalil, the learned counsel for the 3rd 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 3 rd respondent would show that the ..4..

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.

..5..

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 offences in question do 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 charge sheet dated 22.02.2015 in C.C. No.1235/2015 of the 6 th Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Kollam stands hereby quashed.

Sd/- DR.KAUSER EDAPPAGATH, JUDGE ded/30.03.2022 ..6.. APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 439/2022 PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure A1 TRUE COPY OF THE CHARGE SHEET DATED 6TH JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-II, KOLLAM. Annexure A2 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON JUDGMENT DATED Annexure A3 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPROMISE ENTERED IN BETWEEN PETITIONERS 1 TO 3 AND 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 10/12/2018. RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS : NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE

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