CRL.M.C. No.1696 of 2024

## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS ``` ``` TUESDAY, THE 19[TH] DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 29TH PHALGUNA, 1945 ``` ``` CRL.MC NO. 1696 OF 2024 ``` ``` CRIME NO.3046/2023 OF PALLURUTHY POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS 1 TO 6: ``` - **`1 SINIL HARRIS AGED 30 YEARS`** ``` S/O MUHAMMED HARRIS, PALAKKAL HOUSE, PERUMBADAPPU, PALLURUTHY, ERNAKULAM DIST, PIN – 682006 ``` - **`2 HASEENA HARRIS AGED 55 YEARS W/O MUHAMMED HARRIS, PALAKKAL HOUSE, PERUMBADAPPU, PALLURUTHY, ERNAKULAM DIST, PIN, PIN – 682006`** - **`3 SHIJINI NIVAS AGED 36 YEARS`** - **`W/O NISHAD, VATTAVANAPARAMBU HOUSE, PALLURUTHY, THANGAL NAGAR, EDAKOCHI, ERNAKULAM DIST, PIN – 682006`** - **`4 NISHAD AGED 38 YEARS SON OF NOOH, VATTAVANAPARAMBU HOUSE, PALLURUTHY, THANGAL NAGAR, EDAKOCHI, ERNAKULAM DIST, PIN – 682006`** - **`5 SHINCY SIRAJ AGED 33 YEARS`** - **`W/O SIRAJ, KARIMBADATH HOUSE, PALLURUTHY, ERNAKULAM DIST, PIN – 682006`** - **`6 SIRAJ K.B AGED 43 YEARS S/O BASHEER, KARIMBADATH HOUSE, PALLURUTHY, ERNAKULAM DIST, PIN – 682006`** ``` BY ADVS. ANIL K.MUHAMED ``` Crl.M.C.No.1696 of 2024 _-:2:-_ ## **`B.S.SURAJ KRISHNA KRISHNAKUMAR G. AJIN SALAM`** ## **`RESPONDENTS:`** - **`1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031`** - **`2 SHAMNA K.H AGED 26 YEARS D/O HUSSAIN, MALIYAM VEEDU, KALLUCHIRA, PALLURUTHY, ERNAKULAM DIST, PIN - 682006 R2 BY ADV S.MOHAMMED AL RAFI`** ## **`OTHER PRESENT:`** ## **`SR PP SMT NEEMA T V`** ``` THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19.03.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ``` Crl.M.C.No.1696 of 2024 _-:3:-_ Dated this the 19[th] day of March, 2024 ## **O R D E R** The petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973, to quash Annexure-1 First Information Report[FIR] and all further proceedings in Crime No.3046/2023 of the Palluruthy Kasaba Police Station, Ernakulam. 2. The petitioners are the accused 1 to 6 in the above crime registered against them, at the instance of the second respondent, for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Sections 120(B), 506, 323, 312, 406, 420, 498(A) r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code,1860 and Section 66 A of the Information Technology Act. 3. The crux of the prosecution case is that: the first petitioner was married to the second respondent on 19.11.2017. During the period of cohabitation, the Crl.M.C.No.1696 of 2024 _-:4:-_ accused had mentally and physically harassed the second respondent demanding more dowry. Thus, the accused have committed the above offences. 4. Heard; Sri. Anil K.Muhamed, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Smt. Neema T.V., the learned Senior Public Prosecutor appearing for the first respondent and Sri Mohammed Al Rafi, the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent . 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the subject matter in dispute between the petitioners and the second respondent has been amicably settled and the second respondent has voluntarily executed Annexure-3 affidavit, stating that she has no subsisting grievance as against the petitioners and has no objection in all further proceedings in the above crime being quashed. Hence, the petition may be allowed. 6. The learned Public Prosecutor, on instructions, Crl.M.C.No.1696 of 2024 _-:5:-_ submitted that the Investigating Officer has ascertained and reported that the subject matter in dispute between the petitioners and the second respondent has been amicably settled and the second respondent has voluntarily executed Annexure-3 affidavit. 7. The learned counsel for the second respondent also submitted that the dispute between the parties has been settled and the second respondent has no subsisting grievance as against the petitioners. The said submission is recorded. 8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in **Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab** [2012 (10) SCC 303] and **Prabatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and others vs. State of Gujarat and another** [(2017) 9 SCC 641] has held that in the facts and circumstances of the case and to secure the ends of justice, where the High Court is satisfied that an amicable settlement has Crl.M.C.No.1696 of 2024 _-:6:-_ been arrived at between the parties and the offence is not serious in nature involving mental depravity, criminal proceedings may be quashed. 9. On a consideration of the facts, the rival submissions made across the Bar, and the materials on record, especially after going through Annexure-3 affidavit sworn in by the second respondent, which has been found to be genuine and bona fide by the Investigating Officer, I am convinced and satisfied that this is a fit case to exercise the inherent power of this Court, particularly since the alleged offences are not serious in nature, no public interest is involved, the chances of conviction is remote, the continuation of the proceeding would only be wastage of judicial time and the settlement would augur harmony in society. Hence, I am inclined to allow the petition. In the result, the Crl.M.C is allowed by quashing Annexure-I First Information Report[FIR], and all Crl.M.C.No.1696 of 2024 _-:7:-_ further proceedings in Crime No.3046/2023 of Palluruthy Kasaba Police Station, Ernakulam, as against the petitioners. The Crl.M.C is ordered accordingly. SD/- **C.S.DIAS,JUDGE** rmm/19/3/2024 Crl.M.C.No.1696 of 2024 _-:8:-_ ## **`A PPENDIX OF CRL.MC 1696/2024`** ``` PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure 1A CERTIFIED COPY OF FIR AND THE COMPLAINT FORWARDED FROM THE MAGISTRATE COURT Annexure 2A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THAT AGREEMENT DATED 07/02/2024 Annexure 3AN AFFIDAVIT DTD:- 07/02/2024 SWORN BY 2ND RESPONDENT ```