Nishad vs State of Kerala

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Mar 17, 2022

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1445499

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/1445499
Court: Kerala High Court
Judge: Honourable Dr. Justice Kauser Edappagath
Decided On: Mar 17, 2022
Case Number: Crl.MC/569/2022

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Nishad

Respondent

State of Kerala

Excerpt

.....-a1 fir in crime no.553/2021 of kottiyam police station on the file of the judicial first class magistrate court-ii, kollam on the ground of settlement between the parties.2. the petitioners are the accused nos.1 to 3. the 3 rd respondent is the de facto complainant.3. the offences alleged against the petitioners are under sections.498-a,323 and 34 of the ipc.4. the 3rd respondent entered appearance through counsel. an affidavit sworn in by her is also produced.5. i have heard sri.s.sreekumar, the learned counsel for the petitioners, sri.k.vijayan, 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 ..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 offences in question do not fall within the category of offences.....

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH THURSDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF MARCH 2022/ 26TH PHALGUNA, 1943 CRL.MC NO. 569 OF 2022 CRIME NO.553/2021 OF KOTTIYAM POLICE STATION ON THE FILE OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-II, KOLLAM PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 TO 3: 1 NISHAD , AGED 38 YEARS, S/O. ASHRAF, RESIDING AT NISHAD MANZIL, JONAKAPPURAM, KOLLAM PIN 2 RAMLA, AGED 55 YEARS, W/O. ASHARAF, RESIDING AT NISHAD MANZIL, JONAKAPPURAM, KOLLAM-691006 3 ASHARAF,RESIDING AT NISHAD MANZIL, JONAKAPPURAM, KOLLAM PIN - 691006 BY ADV S.SREEKUMAR (KOLLAM) RESPONDENTS/STATE & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM , PIN 682031 2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER KOTTIYAM POLICE STATION, KOLLAM DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM , PIN - 682031 3 FEENA, AGED 25 YEARS, D/O. ABDUL VAHAB, RESIDING AT THODIYIL VEEDU, KANNANALLOOR P.O, THRIKKOVILVATTOM VILLAGE, KOLLAM , PIN - 691576 BY ADV K.VIJAYAN-R3 SMT T V NEEMA -SR PP THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR

ADMISSION ON 17.03.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ..2..

ORDER

Dated this the 17th day of March, 2022 This Crl.M.C. has been preferred to quash Annexure -A1 FIR in Crime No.553/2021 of Kottiyam Police Station on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Kollam on the ground of settlement between the parties.

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

3. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections.498-A,323 and 34 of the IPC.

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

5. I have heard Sri.S.Sreekumar, the learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri.K.Vijayan, 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 ..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 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 FIR in Crime No.553/2021 of Kottiyam Police Station on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Kollam stands hereby quashed.

Sd/- DR.KAUSER EDAPPAGATH, JUDGE ded/17.03.2022 ..5.. APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 569/2022 PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure1 A TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO: 553 OF 2021 OF KOTTIYAM POLICE STATION Annexure2 A TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT DATED 19TH JANUARY 2022 HAS BEEN SWORN BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT BEFORE THIS HON’BLE COURT RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS : NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE

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