Sajad vs Public Prosecutor

SAJAD vs Public Prosecutor

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Mar 18, 2022

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1449704

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/1449704
Court: Kerala High Court
Judge: Honourable Dr. Justice Kauser Edappagath
Decided On: Mar 18, 2022
Case Number: Crl.MC/927/2022

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

SAJAD

Respondent

Public Prosecutor

Excerpt

.....the 18th day of march, 2022 this crl.m.c. has been preferred to quash further proceedings pursuant to annexure a1 final report in crime no. settlement between the parties.2. the petitioners are the accused nos. 1 and 2. the 2 nd respondent is the defacto complainant.3. the offences alleged against the petitioners are under sections 498 a and 34 of ipc.4. the respondent no.2 entered appearance through counsel. an affidavit sworn in by her is also produced.5. i have heard j.r. prem navaz, the learned counsel for the petitioners, sri. ajoy venu, the learned counsel for the respondent no.2 and smt. t.v. neema, the learned senior public prosecutor.6. the averments in the petition as well as the affidavit -:3:-sworn in by the respondent no.2 would show that the 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.8. the dispute in the above case is purely personal in -:4:- nature. no public interest or harmony will be adversely affectedby 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 FRIDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF MARCH 2022 / 27TH PHALGUNA, 1943 CRL.MC NO. 927 OF 2022 CRIME NO.12/2021 OF Thiruvambadi Police Station, Kozhikode PETITIONER/ACCUSED: 1 SAJAD, AGED 28 YEARS,S/O ABDUL RAZZAK, ANGADIKKADAVATHU HOUSE, ANAYAMKUNNU, KUMARANALLUR P.O, KOZHIKODE TALUK KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673602 2 ABDU RASAK, AGED 57 YEARS, S/O ABOOBACKER, ANGADIKKADAVATHU HOUSE, ANAYAMKUNNU, KUMARANALLUR P.O, KOZHIKODE TALUK, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673602 BY ADVS. J.R.PREM NAVAZ SUMEEN S. ANSAR.K.C RESPONDENTS: 1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031 2 RIYA FASEELA, AGED 20 YEARS, D/O ASHRAFF VALIYAPARAMBATH HOUSE, KOOMBARA, THIRUVAMBADI, THAMARASSERY TALUK KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673603 BY ADV AJOY VENU SMT. T.V. NEEMA, SR. PP THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18.03.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: -:2:-

ORDER

Dated this the 18th day of March, 2022 This Crl.M.C. has been preferred to quash further proceedings pursuant to Annexure A1 Final Report in Crime No. settlement between the parties.

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

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

4. The respondent No.2 entered appearance through counsel. An affidavit sworn in by her is also produced.

5. I have heard J.R. Prem Navaz, the learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri. Ajoy Venu, the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 and Smt. T.V. Neema, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor.

6. The averments in the petition as well as the affidavit -:3:-

sworn in by the respondent No.2 would show that the 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.

8. The dispute in the above case is purely personal in -:4:- 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. Further proceedings pursuant to Annexure A1 Final Report in Crime No. 12/2021 of Thiruvambady Police Station stands hereby quashed.

Sd/- DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH JUDGE kp True copy P.A. To Judge -:5:- APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 927/2022 PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure-A1 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT/CHARGE SHEET IN CRIME NO: 12 OF 2021 OF THIRUVAMPADI POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT Annexure-A2 THE AFFIDAVIT, SOLEMNLY AFFIRMED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT

Same Court & Year Kerala · 2022 Same Parties SAJAD vs Public Prosecutor Same Judge Honourable Dr. Justice Kauser Edappagath