SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Nishad vs State Of Kerala on 29 October, 2019

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS

TUESDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2019 / 7TH KARTHIKA, 1941

Crl.MC.No.7467 OF 2019(C)

AGAINST JUDGMENT IN CC 1087/2016 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST
CLASS -II,TRIVANDRUM

CRIME NO.1407/2015 OF Poonthura Police Station ,
Thiruvananthapuram

PETITIONER/S:

NISHAD
AGED 31 YEARS
S/O.SIRAJUDHEEN, MUTTATHARA VILLAGE, TC.48/450/6,
SWAGHATH NAGAR, AMBHALATHARA WARD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
DISTRICT, KERALA, INDIA, PIN-695009.

BY ADV. SRI.NAVEEN RADHAKRISHNAN

RESPONDENT/S:

1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031.

2 HAYARUNNISA S.,
D/O.JALALUDEEN, AGED 28 YEARS, TC.46/344,
S.A.H.MANZIL, PALLYSTREET, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
DISTRICT, KERALA, INDIA-695036.

R2 BY ADV. K. REMIYA RAMACHANDRAN

OTHER PRESENT:

SRI.T.R.RENJITH, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
29.10.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.M.C.No.7467/2019 2

ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.
——————————————-
Crl.M.C.No. 7467 of 2019
———————————————-
Dated this the 29th day of October, 2019

ORDER

The petitioner herein is the accused in the impugned Crime

No.1407/2015 of Poonthura Police Station, Thiruvananthapurm

District, which has been registered for offences punishable under

Sec.498A of the SectionI.P.C and Sec.3 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, on

the basis of a complaint filed by the 2 nd respondent/defacto

complainant and which has led to the institution of Annex-A1 final

report in C.C.No.1407/2015 on the file of the Judicial First Class

Magistrate Court-II, Thiruvananthapuram. It is stated that now the

entire disputes between the petitioner and the 2 nd respondent/defacto

complainant have been settled amicably and that 2 nd respondent has

sworn to Anx-A3 affidavit before this Court, wherein it is stated that

she has settled the entire disputes with the petitioner and that she has

no objection for quashment of the impugned criminal proceedings

pending against the petitioner. It is in the light of these aspects that

the petitioner has preferred the instant Crl.M.C. with the prayer to

quash the impugned criminal proceedings against him.
Crl.M.C.No.7467/2019 3

2. In a catena of decisions, the Apex Court has held that,

in appropriate cases involving even non-compoundable offences,

the High Court can quash prosecution by exercise of the powers

under Sec.482 of the SectionCr.P.C., if the parties have really settled the

whole dispute or if the continuance of the prosecution will not

serve any purpose. Here, this Court finds a real case of settlement

between the parties and it is also found that continuance of the

prosecution in such a situation will not serve any purpose other

than wasting the precious time of the court, when the case

ultimately comes before the court. On a perusal of the petition and

on a close scrutiny of the investigation materials on record and the

affidavits of settlement and taking into account the attendant facts

and circumstances of this case, this Court is of the considered

opinion that the legal principles laid down by the Apex Court in the

cases as in SectionGian Singh v. State of Punjab reported in 2013 (1) SCC

(Cri) 160 (2012) 10 SCC 303 and SectionNarinder Singh and others v.

State of Punjab and anr. reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466, more

particularly paragraph 29 thereof, could be applied in this case to

consider the prayer for quashment.

3. Accordingly, it is ordered in the interest of justice that

the impugned Crime No.1407/2015 of Poonthura Police Station,
Crl.M.C.No.7467/2019 4

Thiruvananthapuram District, which has led to the institution of

Annex-A1 final report in C.C.No.1407/2015 on the file of Judicial

First Class Magistrate Court-II, Thiruvananthapuram and all further

proceedings arising therefrom pending against the accused will

stand quashed.

The petitioner will produce certified copy of this order before

the court below concerned as well as the Investigating officer

concerned. The office of the Advocate General will also forward a

certified copy of this order to the Investigating Officer concerned.

With these observations and directions, the above Criminal

Miscellaneous Case stands finally disposed of.

sd/-

ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE

acd
Crl.M.C.No.7467/2019 5

APPENDIX
PETITIONER’S/S EXHIBITS:

ANNEXURE A1 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT
ON THE FILES HON’BLE JUDICIAL FIRST
CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-2,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM CRIME NO.1407/2015
OF POONTHURA POLICE STATION,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.

ANNEXURE A2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE SETTLEMENT
AGREEMENT ENTERED BETWEEN THE
PETITIONER AND THE SECOND RESPONDENT.

ANNEXURE A3 THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE SECOND
RESPONDENT STATING SETTLEMENT OF ALL
THE DISPUTES WITH THE PETITIONER
HEREIN.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2020 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation