Muhammed Riswan R vs State of Kerala

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Nov 08, 2022

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1554739

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/1554739
Court: Kerala High Court
Judge: Honourable Dr. Justice Kauser Edappagath
Decided On: Nov 08, 2022
Case Number: Crl.MC/7204/2022

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Muhammed Riswan R

Respondent

State of Kerala

Excerpt

.....station and all further proceedings in c.c. no.108 of 2022 on the file of judicial first class magistrate court, mattanchery on the ground of settlement between the parties.2. the petitioners are accused nos.1 to 3. the 2nd respondent is the de facto complainant.3. the offences alleged against the petitioners are punishable under sections 323 and 498a read with 34 of the indian penal code.4. the 2nd respondent entered appearance through counsel. an affidavit sworn in by her is also produced.5. i have heard sri. john prakash, the learned counsel for the petitioners and sri. p.g. manu, the learned senior public prosecutor.6. the averments in the petition as well as the affidavit sworn in by the 2nd respondent would show that the entire dispute between the parties has been amicably settled and the -4-de facto complainant has decided not to proceed with the 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. even though in the fir, section 377 of ipc was incorporated later on during the investigation, it was found that section 377 of ipc was not attracted and in the final report, offences under sections 323 and 498a read with section 34 of ipc only were included.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 the ends of justice or to-5- prevent abuse of process of.....

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH TUESDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022 / 17TH KARTHIKA, 1944 TO QUASH FIR IN CRIME NO.1574/2021 OF MATTANCHERY POLICE STATION. PETITIONERS/ACCUSED:

1 MUHAMMED RISWAN R AGED 32 YEARS, S/O RASHEED, PADIJAREPALLY, KAPPALANDIMUKKU, MATTANCHERY, KOCHI, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682002 2 NASEEMA BAI AGED 58 YEARS, W/O RASHEED PADIJAREPALLY, KAPPALANDIMUKKU, MATTANCHERY, KOCHI, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682002 3 SULAIMAN SAIT AGED 68 YEARS, S/O YOUSUF, NEAR URBAN MASJID CIVIL STATION WARD, ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 688012 BY ADVS. B.J.JOHN PRAKASH RAMSEENA N. CELINE JOHN

RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT& DEFACTO COMPLAINANT: 1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTING S.I. OF POLICE, MATTANCHERY POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031 -2- 2 HAJARA AGED 20 YEARS D/O. JAN MUHAMMED.Y, C C 9/17 M.K.SREENIVASAN ROAD, CHULLICKKAL, KOCHI, ERANAKULAM, PIN - 682005 SRI. P.G. MANU, SENIOR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08.11.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: -3-

ORDER

This Crl.M.C. has been preferred to quash Annexure A1 FIR in Crime No.1574 of 2021 of Mattanchery Police Station and all further proceedings in C.C. No.108 of 2022 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Mattanchery on the ground of settlement between the parties.

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

3. The offences alleged against the petitioners are punishable under Sections 323 and 498A read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

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

5. I have heard Sri. John Prakash, the learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri. P.G. Manu, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor.

6. The averments in the petition as well as the affidavit sworn in by the 2nd respondent would show that the entire dispute between the parties has been amicably settled and the -4-

de facto complainant has decided not to proceed with the 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. Even though in the FIR, Section 377 of IPC was incorporated later on during the investigation, it was found that Section 377 of IPC was not attracted and in the final report, offences under Sections 323 and 498A read with Section 34 of IPC only were included.

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 the ends of justice or to

-5- 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. 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 FIR in Crime No.1574 of 2021 of Mattanchery Police Station and all further proceedings in C.C. No.108 of 2022 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Mattanchery hereby stands quashed. Sd/- DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH JUDGE bpr -6- APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 7204/2022 PETITIONERS' ANNEXURES Annexure-A1 TRUE COPY OF THE FIR NO.1574/2021 Annexure-A2 TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT DATED 19.09.2022 OF 2ND RESPONDENT

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