SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Shaji vs State Of Kerala on 19 November, 2019

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS

TUESDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2019 / 28TH KARTHIKA, 1941

Crl.MC.No.8124 OF 2019(E)

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC 1980/2015 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE
OF FIRST CLASS, TIRUR

CRIME NO.267/2010 OF KUTTIPPURAM POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED:

1 SHAJI,
AGED 46 YEARS, S/O.ABDULLA,
VARATTIPALLIYALIL HOUSE,
KUMBIDI.P.O., OTTAPPALAM TALUK,
PALAKKAD DISTRICT

2 MARIYAKUTTY
AGED 66 YEARS, S/O.ABDULLA,
VARATTIPALLIYALIL HOUSE,
KUMBIDI.P.O., OTTAPPALAM TALUK,
PALAKKAD DISTRICT

BY ADV. SRI.P.SAMSUDIN

RESPONDENTS/STATE AND DE FACTO COMPLAINANT:

1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031
(CRIME NO.267/2010 OF KUTTIPPURAM POLICE STATION)

2 RASEENA
AGED 37 YEARS, D/O.SAITHALAVI,
PALATHINKAL, THRIKANAPURAM PONNANI TALUK, MALAPPURAM
DISTRICT,
NOW RESIDING AT PALATHINGAL HOUSE,
ANGADI AMSOM DESOM, KUMARANALLUR.P.O-679552, PALAKKAD
DISTRICT

R2 BY ADV. BINU V V VEETTIL VALAPPIL
SRI.SANTHOSH PETER, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
19.11.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.MC.No.8124 OF 2019(E)

2

ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.

Crl.M.C.No.8124of 2019
———————————–
Dated this the 19th day of November, 2019

ORDER

The petitioners herein have been arrayed as the accused in Annexure-

A1 FIR in Crime No.267/2010 of Kuttippuram Police Station, Malappuram,

registered for offences punishable under Secs.448, 341, 323, 498A read

with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, which led to the pendency of Annexure-

A2 final report in C.C.No.1980/2015 on the file of the Judicial First Class

Magistrate’s Court, Tirur. It is stated that now the entire disputes between

the petitioners herein and the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant have

been settled amicably and that the 2nd respondent has sworn to Annexure-

A3 affidavit before this Court, wherein it is stated that she has settled the

entire disputes with the petitioners and that she has no objection for

quashment of the impugned criminal proceedings pending against the

petitioners. It is in the light of these aspects that the petitioners have

preferred the instant Crl.M.C. with the prayer to quash the impugned

criminal proceedings against them.

Crl.MC.No.8124 OF 2019(E)

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

Cr.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 affidavit 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 Gian Singh v. State of

Punjab reported in 2013 (1) SCC (Cri) 160 (2012) 10 SCC 303 and

Narinder 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 Annexure-A1 FIR in Crime No.267/2010 of Kuttippuram Police

Station, Malappuram, which led to the pendency of Annexure-A2 final
Crl.MC.No.8124 OF 2019(E)

4

report in C.C.No.1980/2015 on the file of the Judicial First Class

Magistrate’s Court, Tirur and all further proceedings arising therefrom

pending against all the accused will stand quashed.

4. The petitioners will produce certified copies of this order to the

Investigating Officer concerned and the competent court below concerned.

Office of Advocate General will forward a copy of this order to the

Investigating Officer concerned, for necessary information.

With these observations and directions, the above Criminal

Miscellaneous Case stands finally disposed of.

Sd/-

ALEXANDER THOMAS

JUDGE

vgd
Crl.MC.No.8124 OF 2019(E)

5

APPENDIX

PETITIONER’S/S EXHIBITS:

ANNEXURE A1 CERTIFIED COPY OF FIR IN CRIME NO.267/2010
KUTTIPPURAM POLICE STATION

ANNEXURE A2 CERTIFIED COPY OF FINAL REPORT IN CRIME
NO.267/2010 KUTTIPPURAM POLICE STATION

ANNEXURE A3 THE AFFIDAVIT DATED 12.11.2019 SWORN IN BY
THE 2ND RESPONDENT

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