Arshad vs Sereena

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Jun 30, 2022

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1492418

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/1492418
Court: Kerala High Court
Judge: Honourable Dr. Justice Kauser Edappagath
Decided On: Jun 30, 2022
Case Number: Crl.MC/3999/2022

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Arshad

Respondent

Sereena

Excerpt

.....to quash annexure-a1 final report in c.c.no.240/2022 on the file of the judicial first class magistrate court, kodungallur on the ground of settlement between the parties.2. the petitioners are the accused nos.1 to 3. the 1 st respondent is the de facto complainant.3. the offences alleged against the petitioners are punishable under sections 406 and 498a read with section 34 of the ipc.4. the respondent no.1 entered appearance through counsel. an affidavit sworn in by her is also produced.5. i have heard sri.hashim.v.h., the learned counsel for the petitioners, sri.k.g.nithin, the learned counsel for the respondent no.1 and sri.sangeetha raj, the learned public prosecutor for the respondent no.2.6. the averments in the petition as well as the affidavitsworn in by the respondent no.1 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 ..4.. criminal proceedings 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 by 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 innature. no public interest or harmony will be adversely affected by quashing the proceedings pursuant to annexure-a1 final.....

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH THURSDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 9TH ASHADHA, 1944 CRL.MC NO. 3999 OF 2022 CRIME NO.881/2021 OF Mathilakom Police Station, Thrissur C.C.No.240/2022 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kodungallur PETITIONERS/ACCUSED:

1 ARSHAD AGED 35 YEARS S/O ABDUL KADAR, ALANGAD HOUSE, PUTHUMANAPARAMBU, PATHAZHAKAD POST, S.N.PURAM VILLAGE, KODUNGALLUR TALUK, 2 ABDUL KADAR AGED 71 YEARS S/O MOHAMMED, ALANGAD HOUSE, PUTHUMANAPARAMBU, PATHAZHAKAD POST, S.N.PURAM VILLAGE, KODUNGALLUR TALUK, 3 RAHILA AGED 55 YEARS W/O ABDUL KADAR, ALANGAD HOUSE, PUTHUMANAPARAMBU, PATHAZHAKAD POST, S.N.PURAM VILLAGE, KODUNGALLUR TALUK, BY ADVS. HASHIM V.H. P.M.ABDUL JALEEL (KODUNGALLUR) T.V.SHAJI K.SHAMEER MOHAMMED

RESPONDENTS/DE FACTO COMPLAINANT & STATE: 1 SEREENA AGED 30 YEARS D/O SARVADHEEN, VETTUKKAL HOUSE, KAVUMTHARA DESOM, KODAKARA VILLAGE, CHALAKUDY TALUK, KODAKARA POST THRISSUR DISTRICT, KERALA , PIN - 680307 ..2.. 2 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031 R1 BY ADV K.G.NITHIN R2 BY SRI.SANGEETHA RAJ Public Prosecutor THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30.06.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ..3..

ORDER

This Crl.M.C. has been preferred to quash Annexure-A1 Final Report in C.C.No.240/2022 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kodungallur on the ground of settlement between the parties.

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

3. The offences alleged against the petitioners are punishable under Sections 406 and 498A read with Section 34 of the IPC.

4. The respondent No.1 entered appearance through counsel. An affidavit sworn in by her is also produced.

5. I have heard Sri.Hashim.V.H., the learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri.K.G.Nithin, the learned counsel for the respondent No.1 and Sri.Sangeetha Raj, the learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent No.2.

6. The averments in the petition as well as the affidavit

sworn in by the respondent No.1 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 ..4.. criminal proceedings 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 by 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

nature. No public interest or harmony will be adversely affected by quashing the proceedings pursuant to Annexure-A1 Final Report in C.C.No.240/2022 on the file of the Judicial First ..5.. Class Magistrate Court, Kodungallur. 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 any further. Accordingly, the Crl.M.C. is allowed. Annexure-A1 Final Report in C.C.No.240/2022 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kodungallur hereby stands quashed. Sd/- DR.KAUSER EDAPPAGATH, JUDGE skj ..6.. APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 3999/2022 PETITIONERS' ANNEXURES Annexure A1 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE CHARGE SHEET IN C.C.240/2022 ON THE FILE OF J.F.C.M. COURT, KODUNGALLUR. Annexure A2 THE TRUE COPY OF MARRIAGE DISSOLUTION AGREEMENT DATED 04-06-2022 SIGNED BY THE 1st PETITIONER AND THE 1st RESPONDENT. Annexure A3 AFFIDAVIT SIGNED BY THE 1st RESPONDENT.

Same Court & Year Kerala · 2022 Same Parties Arshad vs Sereena Same Judge Honourable Dr. Justice Kauser Edappagath