Abdul Razak A.P. v. State of Kerala (Crl.MC Nos. 2526 of 2021 and 2528 of 2021)
Case Details & Bench
- Court
- High Court of Kerala
- Hon'ble Judges
- Gopinath P.
- Judgment Date
- 2021-05-04
- Court Decision / Holding
- Crl.M.C Nos.2526 of 2021 and 2528 of 2021 are allowed. All further proceedings in C.C.No.511 of 2018 on the file of the JFM- II, Kasaragod, arising out of Crime No.19 of 2018, will stand quashed as against the petitioner. Annexure AI FIR in Crime No.631 of 2020 of Badiadka Police Station, Kasaragod, and all further proceedings thereon shall also stand quashed as against the petitioner. These Criminal Miscellaneous Cases are disposed of, accordingly.
- Final Disposition
- Disposed of: Quashing of proceedings and dismissal of two Crl.MCs; proceedings in CC 511/2018 and Crime No.631/2020 stood quashed against the petitioner; Crl.MCs allowed; matter disposed of accordingly.
Parties to the Case
Appellants / Petitioners
- Abdul Razak A.P.
Respondents
- State of Kerala
- Sameera K.
Legal Representation & Advocates
Counsels for Petitioners
- • Sri A. Arunkumar
Counsels for Respondents
- • Sri Vipin T Jose
- • Sri K.B. Sudhev Kumar
- • Public Prosecutor
Case Synopsis & Summary
The petitioners, Abdul Razak A.P., seeks to quash two criminal miscellaneous cases pending against him arising from two police cases. Crl.M.C.No.2526/2021 challenges CC No.511 of 2018 arising from Crime No.19/2018 of Badiadka Police Station, Kasaragod, under Section 498A IPC. Crl.M.C.No.2528/2021 challenges Crime No.631/2020 of Badiadka Police Station, Kasaragod, alleging offences under IPC Sections 323, 324, 498A and Section 31(1) of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The petitioner and the de facto complainant, Sameera K., are spouses who had marital disputes. It is stated that the disputes have been settled amicably and the de facto complainant does not intend to continue the prosecution, a position supported by affidavits filed on record. The petitioner relies on the inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC to secure the ends of justice, citing Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Parbatbhai Aahir v. State of Gujarat. The learned counsel for both sides, along with the Public Prosecutor, addressed the court. After considering the nature of the relationship and the affidavits, the court held that the inherent jurisdiction can be exercised to quash the proceedings and allow the two Crl.M.Cs. Accordingly, all further proceedings in the connected cases were quashed against the petitioner, and the two MAT cases were disposed of. The order emphasizes the balance between private settlement and public interest in criminal prosecutions.
Provisions of Law Cited
Legal Doctrines & Maxims
- Inherent jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 CrPC to secure the ends of justice
- Ends of justice principle
- Quashing of criminal proceedings in appropriate circumstances when private settlement exists (as supported by precedents)
Submissions & Arguments
Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners
The petitioner submits that the matrimonial disputes between Abdul Razak A.P. and Sameera K. have been settled amicably, as evidenced by affidavits placed on record; the de facto complainant states she no longer wishes to pursue the prosecution; the offences alleged, though serious, involve private disputes over domestic relationships, and continuing criminal proceedings would not serve the ends of justice. Invoking Section 482 CrPC, the petitioner seeks to quash all further proceedings in CC No.511/2018 and Crime No.631/2020; reliance is placed on the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Parbatbhai Aahir v. State of Gujarat, which permit quashing where a settlement exists and public interest requires ending the matter. The court is urged to exercise its inherent jurisdiction to secure ends of justice and prevent protracted litigation between the parties. The affidavits, the long-standing relationship and the factual matrix are evaluated, and it is contended that the ends of justice would be best served by quashing the proceedings against the petitioner.
Contentions of Respondents
The respondents (State/complainant) contend that the offences alleged in Crime No.19/2018 and Crime No.631/2020 are grave and require adjudication in trial; however, the de facto complainant's affidavits indicate a desire to settle; the court recognizes the private resolution but must weigh public interest; in absence of a verified compromise or if the offences involve non-compoundable acts, the Court should be cautious; the Public Prosecutor submits that quashing should be exercised only in exceptional circumstances when the ends of justice require it and provided that it does not amount to an abuse of process; since the matter concerns domestic violence and offences involving 498A, the Court must ensure not to dilute the seriousness of the offences; notwithstanding the settlement, further proceedings must be examined for the welfare of the complainant and public interest.
Cited Precedents (2)
| Case Name | Citation | Treatment | Explanation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another | 2012 (4) KLT 108 | Positive | Cited for the principle that the inherent power under Section 482 CrPC can be invoked to secure ends of justice and quash proceedings in appropriate circumstances, including matrimonial disputes with settlements. |
| Parbatbhai Aahir v. State of Gujarat | [(2017) 9 SCC 641] | Positive | Supreme Court precedent supporting quashing of prosecutions in appropriate circumstances where ends of justice require it, reinforcing the use of 482 CrPC in such contexts. |
Diagnostic Tool
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 Razak A.P. v. State of Kerala (Crl.MC Nos. 2526 of 2021 and 2528 of 2021) and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.
Extracted Judgment Text
Exact text extracted from official judgment records.