Tenetowl LogoTenetowl
High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeQuashed; prosecution terminated/withdrawn again...

Abdul Nazar and others v. State of Kerala

Case / Petition Number:Crl.MC.No.973 of 2007

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • R. Basant
Judgment Date
2007-03-27
Court Decision / Holding
This Criminal Miscellaneous Case is allowed. C.C.No.1/2006 pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Ottappalam against the petitioners is hereby quashed.
Final Disposition
Quashed; prosecution terminated/withdrawn against petitioners 1-7; C.C.No.1/2006 quashed.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • Abdul Nazar
  • Muhammed Master
  • Ayisha
  • Muhammed Rasi
  • Seenath
  • Abdul Azeez
  • Aboodacker Siddique
  • Subaida

Respondents

  • The State of Kerala, represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Pattambi Police Station (through the Public Prosecutor)

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • Sri. Babu S. Nair

Counsels for Respondents

  • • Public Prosecutor S. U. Nazer

Case Synopsis & Summary

The High Court of Kerala heard a Criminal Miscellaneous Case (Crl.M.C. No. 973 of 2007) arising from a prosecution under Section 498A IPC read with Section 34 IPC, initiated against Abdul Nazar and seven relatives, with Subaida as the de facto complainant being the wife of the first petitioner. Cognizance was taken on the final report submitted after investigation, and the accused faced allegations under Section 498A read with 34 IPC. The petitioners approached the court seeking quashing of the ongoing prosecution in C.C. No. 1/2006 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Ottappalam, on the ground that the parties had settled all disputes and live in harmony. Annexure-B contains an affidavit sworn by the 8th petitioner (the de facto complainant) asserting that all disputes have been amicably resolved; the affidavit is attested by a notary. The petitioners’ counsel submits that the settlement justifies terminating the proceedings, and invokes the principle endorsed in B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana (AIR 2003 SC 1386) that the ends of justice may transcend strict Section 320 Cr.P.C constraints, allowing exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash a non‑compoundable offence when appropriate. The court accepts the voluntary, genuine settlement and reasons that continuing litigation would be an unnecessary irritant to reconciled relations, thus quashing C.C. No. 1/2006 and allowing the petition.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 498A IPC read with Section 34 IPCSection 320 CrPCSection 482 CrPC

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

  • Interests of justice may transcend the interests of mere law.
  • Section 498A IPC offences are not ordinarily compoundable.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners contended that after protracted disputes the parties have amicably settled as evidenced by Annexure-B, sworn by the 8th petitioner (wife of the 1st petitioner) and attested by a notary, stating that all issues have been harmoniously resolved. They argued that continuing the prosecution under Section 498A IPC would perpetuate hostility and that the ends of justice permit invoking the court’s inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C to terminate the proceedings, notwithstanding Section 320 Cr.P.C’s bar on compounding. Relying on B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana (AIR 2003 SC 1386), they urged quashing the case to prevent acrimony and to bring about a peaceful resolution consistent with the settlement.

Contentions of Respondents

The State’s counsel did not oppose the outcome, recognizing the voluntary settlement. They conceded that 498A is generally non-compoundable, but supported invoking the court’s inherent powers in light of the genuine settlement and the public interest in ending protracted litigation where the parties have reconciled, consistent with the principle cited in B.S. Joshi that justice may supersede strict procedural constraints for ends of justice.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
B.S. Joshi v. State of HaryanaAIR 2003 SC 1386PositiveThe High Court relies on this decision to justify using its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash a non-compoundable offence in the interests of justice when a genuine settlement exists.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Abdul Nazar and others v. State of Kerala and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT TUESDAY, THE 27TH MARCH 2007 / 6TH CHAITHRA 1929 Crl.MC.No. 973 of 2007() -----------------------CC.1/2006 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, OTTAPPALAM CRIME NO.90/2003 OF THE PATTAMBI POLICE STATION .................... ## PETITIONERS/ACCUSED & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT: ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. ABDUL NAZAR, S/O.NUHAMMED, NJALUCHIRAKALATHIL HOUSE, CHERUKODE, VALLAPUZHA, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 2. MUHAMMED MASTER, S/O.MOIDU MOULAVI (LATE) NJALUCHIRAKALATHIL HOUSE, CHERUKODE, VALLAPUZHA, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 3. AYISHA, W/O.MUHAMMED, NJALUCHIRAKALATHIL HOUSE, CHERUKODE, VALLAPUZHA, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 4. MUHAMMED RASI, S/O.MUHAMMED, NJALUCHIRAKALATHIL HOUSE, CHERUKODE, VALLAPUZHA, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 5. SEENATH, D/O.MUHAMMED, NJALUCHIRAKALATHIL HOUSE, CHERUKODE, VALLAPUZHA, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 6. ABDUL AZEEZ, S/O.MUHAMMEDKUTTY, ERASSERYTHODI HOUSE, CHERUKODE, VALLAPUZHA, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 7. ABOOBACKER SIDDIQUE, S/O.MOIDU MOULAVI(LATE) NJALUCHIRAKALATHIL HOUSE, CHERUKODE, VALLAPUZHA, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 8. SUBAIDA, S/O.LATE MAMMUNNI, PALENGAL HOUSE, ELAMKULAM, CHERUKARA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. - BY ADV. SRI.BABU S. NAIR RESPONDENT/STATE: -------------------------------- THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PATTAMBI POLICE STATION - THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-31. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.S.U.NAZER THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/03/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ## **R.BASANT, J.** **----------------------** Crl.M.C.No.973 of 2007 ---------------------------------------Dated this the 27[th] day of March 2007 ## **O R D E R** The petitioners 1 to 7 are accused in a prosecution under Section 498A I.P.C initiated against them on the complaint of the 8[th] petitioner. The 8[th] petitioner was the wife of the first petitioner. Petitioners 2 to 7 are relatives of the first petitioner. Cognizance was taken on the basis of a final report submitted by the police after due investigation. Petitioners 1 to 7 face allegations under Section 498A read with 34 I.P.C only. 2. All the petitioners have together come before this court with the prayer that the prosecution against the petitioners 1 to 7 which is pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Ottappalam in C.C.No.1/2006 may be quashed in as much as the petitioners have settled all their disputes and there is harmony prevailing among them. The petitioners have produced Annexure-B affidavit sworn to by the 8[th] petitioner in which she has categorically stated that the disputes have been settled and all issues have been harmoniously compromised. In as much as there is such settlement, the 8[th] petitioner has compounded the Crl.M.C.No.973 of 2007 2 offence allegedly committed by the petitioners 1 to 7. All of them have chosen to appear through the same counsel. The counsel vouches for the signature of the 8[th] petitioner in the affidavit produced as Annexure B which is duly attested by a notary public also. I am satisfied from the submissions made at the Bar as also from the averments in the petition and from Annexure B agreement that the parties have willingly and voluntarily settled their disputes. If legally possible, I am satisfied that the composition can be accepted and further proceedings dropped. The offence under Section 498A I.P.C is not compoundable. The learned counsel for the petitioners relies on the decision in B.S.Joshi vs. State of Haryana [AIR 2003 SC 1386]. The said decision is authority for the proposition that interests of justice may, at times, transcend the interests of mere law and in such situation, stipulations under Section 320 cannot be reckoned as an insurmountable fetter on the powers of the court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 3. I am satisfied that this is an eminently fit case where such powers can be invoked to bring to premature termination the prosecution against petitioners 1 to 7 which has now lost its Crl.M.C.No.973 of 2007 3 meaning, significance and relevance. Permitting the proceedings to continue would certainly be an unnecessary irritant in the relationship between the parties who have settled all the disputes amicably. 4. In the result: - i) This Criminal Miscellaneous Case is allowed. ii) C.C.No.1/2006 pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Ottappalam against the petitioners is hereby quashed. Hand over copy of this order to the learned counsel for the petitioner. **(R.BASANT, JUDGE)** jsr # Crl.M.C.No.973 of 2007 4 Crl.M.C.No.973 of 2007 5 ## **R.BASANT, J** C.R.R.P.No. ORDER 21ST DAY OF JULY 2006