Hidayath, vs State of Kerala,

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Aug 26, 2020

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1738807

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/1738807
Court: Kerala High Court
Judge: Honourable Mr.Justice V.G.Arun
Decided On: Aug 26, 2020
Case Number: Crl.MC/999/2020

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Hidayath,

Respondent

State of Kerala,

Excerpt

.....in the crime was submitted alleging commission of offences punishable under sections 498-a, 406, 323, 354 r/w 34 of ipc and the matter is now pending as c.c.no.566/2019 on the files of the judicial first class magistrate court, kodungallur. the de facto complainant, at whose instance the crime was registered is the wife of the 1st petitioner and is arrayed as the 3rd respondent herein. annexure-3 affidavit has been filed by 3rd respondent stating that the matrimonial disputes, which had compelled her to submit the complaint leading to registration of the crime, has been resolved amicably and she has nocrl.mc.no.999 of 2020(d) ..4.. subsisting grievance in the matter.2. heard the learned public prosecutor also, who, on instructions, submits that the petitioners have no criminal antecedents.3. having considered the gravity of the offencesalleged, nature of the injury caused and having perused the affidavit filed by the 3 rd respondent, the contents of which are submitted to be true and voluntary, i am satisfied that the dispute is settled and no public interest is involved in this matter. moreover, in view of the settlement, possibility of the criminal proceedings ending in conviction is remote. as such, continuance of the proceedings will amount to an abuse of process of court and hence, in view of the legal position set out by the honourable supreme court in madan mohan abbot v. state of punjab [(2008) 4 scc 582] and gian singh v. state of punjab and another [(2012) 10 scc 303], there is nocrl.mc.no.999 of 2020(d) ..5.. impediment in granting the relief sought. in the result, this crl.m.c is allowed. the proceedings in c.c.no.566/2019 on the files of the judicial first class magistrate court, kodungallur is quashed. sd/- v.g.arun sb judge crl.mc.no.999 of 2020(d) ..6.. appendix petitioner's/s exhibits: annexure 1 true copy of fir dated 10.04.2019 in crime no.232/2019 of mathilakam police station. annexure 2 true copy of final report in cc no.566/19 on the.....

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN WEDNESDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF AUGUST 2020 / 4TH BHADRA, 1942 Crl.MC.No.999 OF 2020(D) AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC 566/2019 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS , KODUNGALLUR CRIME NO.232/2019 OF Mathilakom Police Station , Thrissur PETITIONER/S:
1 HIDAYATH, AGED 38 YEARS S/O. ALIKUNJU, PURAKKULATH HOUSE, VEKKODE, SN PURAM, 2 ALIMA AGED 65 YEARS W/O. ALIKUNJU, PURAKKULATH HOUSE, VEKKODE, SN PURAM, 3 SHEEBA AGED 39 YEARS D/O. ALIKUNJU, PURAKKULATH HOUSE, VEKKODE, SN PURAM, 4 SHAHANA AGED 36 YEARS D/O. ALIKUNJU, PURAKKULATH HOUSE, VEKKODE, SN PURAM, 5 SAID MUHAMMED AGED 56 YEARS S/O. KUNHAMU, PURAKKULATH HOUSE, VEKKODE, SN PURAM, 6 SHAHIR AGED 34 YEARS S/O. HYDROSE, PURAKKULATH HOUSE, VEKKODE, SN PURAM, BY ADVS. SRI.SAIJO HASSAN SRI.BENOJ C AUGUSTIN SRI.RAFEEK. V.K. SRI.U.M.HASSAN SMT.P.PARVATHY
Crl.MC.No.999 OF 2020(D) ..2.. SMT.SURYA P SHAJI SHRI.MANAS P HAMEED SHRI.GAUTHAM MOHAN H. SMT.AATHIRA SUNNY RESPONDENT/S: 1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN-682031, 2 SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE MATHILAKAM POLICE STATION, THRISSUR-680685. 3 SHEHANA P B AGED 35, D/O. PALAKKAL BAVA, PALAKKAL HOUSE, NEAR MOSQUE, MAMA BAZAR, PALUVAI P O, THYKKAD VILLAGE, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN-680522. R3 BY ADV. SMT.S.LEKHA

OTHER PRESENT: SR.PP.T.R.RENJITH THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26.08.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Crl.MC.No.999 OF 2020(D) ..3..

ORDER

Dated this the 26th day of August 2020 Petitioners are the accused in Crime No.232/2019 registered at the Mathilakam Police Station. Final report in the crime was submitted alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 406, 323, 354 r/w 34 of IPC and the matter is now pending as C.C.No.566/2019 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kodungallur. The de facto complainant, at whose instance the crime was registered is the wife of the 1st petitioner and is arrayed as the 3rd respondent herein. Annexure-3 affidavit has been filed by 3rd respondent stating that the matrimonial disputes, which had compelled her to submit the complaint leading to registration of the crime, has been resolved amicably and she has no

Crl.MC.No.999 OF 2020(D) ..4.. subsisting grievance in the matter.

2. Heard the learned Public Prosecutor also, who, on instructions, submits that the petitioners have no criminal antecedents.

3. Having considered the gravity of the offences

alleged, nature of the injury caused and having perused the affidavit filed by the 3 rd respondent, the contents of which are submitted to be true and voluntary, I am satisfied that the dispute is settled and no public interest is involved in this matter. Moreover, in view of the settlement, possibility of the criminal proceedings ending in conviction is remote. As such, continuance of the proceedings will amount to an abuse of process of court and hence, in view of the legal position set out by the Honourable Supreme Court in Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab [(2008) 4 SCC 582] and Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another [(2012) 10 SCC 303], there is no

Crl.MC.No.999 OF 2020(D) ..5.. impediment in granting the relief sought. In the result, this Crl.M.C is allowed. The proceedings in C.C.No.566/2019 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kodungallur is quashed. Sd/- V.G.ARUN SB JUDGE Crl.MC.No.999 OF 2020(D) ..6.. APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: ANNEXURE 1 TRUE COPY OF FIR DATED 10.04.2019 IN CRIME NO.232/2019 OF MATHILAKAM POLICE STATION. ANNEXURE 2 TRUE COPY OF FINAL REPORT IN CC NO.566/19 ON THE FILE OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE, KODUNGALLUR.

Same Court & Year Kerala · 2020 Same Parties Hidayath, vs State of Kerala, Same Judge Honourable Mr.Justice V.G.Arun