BY AD v. RAMEES P.K
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 ss. 34, 323, 324, 341
Key paragraphs
- Para 33. Having considered the gravity of the offences alleged, nature of the injury caused and having perused the affidavit, the contents of which are vouched to be true and voluntary by the Crl.M.C.No.2081 of 2024 4 counsel for the 2nd respondent, I am satisfied that…
Judgment
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS ,TIRUR PETITIONERS/ACCUSED: 1 2 3 NOUFAL AGED 38 YEARS, S/O MUHAMMED KUTTY, CHEENIKKAL HOUSE, KALLINGALPARAMBU, KALPAKANCHERY P.O, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN 676 551 – MUFEEDH AGED 35 YEARS, S/O MUHAMMED KUTTY, CHEENIKKAL HOUSE, KALLINGALPARAMBU, KALPAKANCHERY P.O, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN 676 551 – SUMAYYA AGED 33 YEARS, D/O MUHAMMED KUTTY, CHEENIKKAL HOUSE, KALLINGALPARAMBU, KALPAKANCHERY P.O, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN 676 551 – BY ADVS. RAMEES P.K. ADITHYA VARMA S. RESPONDENT/S: 1 2 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN 682 031 – KHAIRUNNISA AGED 35 YEARS, W/O. NOUFAL, KUMBALAPARAMBIL HOUSE, RANDATHANI P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN 510 676 – Crl.M.C.No.2081 of 2024 2 BY ADV ERFANA PARAMBADAN OTHER PRESENT: PP MAYA M.N. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
11.04.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Crl.M.C.No.2081 of 2024 3 ORDER Dated this the 11th day of April 2024 Petitioners are the accused in Crime No.304 of 2016 registered at the Kalpakanchery Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 324 read with Section 34 of IPC, now pending as C.C.No.1184 of 2017 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Tirur. The de facto complainant is arrayed as the 2nd respondent. Annexure-2 affidavit has been filed by the 2nd respondent stating that the dispute, which had compelled her to file the complaint, leading to registration of the crime, has been settled amicably and she has no subsisting grievance against the petitioners.
Heard the learned Public Prosecutor also, who, on instructions, submits that no antecedents are reported against the petitioners.
Having considered the gravity of the offences alleged, nature of the injury caused and having perused the affidavit, the contents of which are vouched to be true and voluntary by the Crl.M.C.No.2081 of 2024 4 counsel for the 2nd respondent, I am satisfied that no public interest is involved in this matter and the dispute has been settled amicably. In view of the settlement arrived at between the parties, there is no possibility of the criminal proceedings ending in conviction. 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 impediment in granting the relief. In the result, this Crl.M.C is allowed. Annexure-1 final report and all further proceedings in C.C.No.1184 of 2017 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Tirur as against the petitioners, are quashed. Sd/- V.G. Arun Judge Crl.M.C.No.2081 of 2024 5 APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 2081/2024 PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure 1 A TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO: 304/2016 OF KALPAKANCHERY POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. Annexure 2 A TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 19/02/2024
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.