Mohammed Shafi and Laila Beevi v. State of Kerala and Others

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS** **WEDNESDAY, THE 04TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2020 / 13TH KARTHIKA, 1942** ## **Crl.MC.No.8172 OF 2017** **CRIME NO.1015/2017 OF KAZHAKKUTTOM POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM** ## **PETITIONERS/A1 & A2:** - **1 MOHAMMED SHAFI AGE 43, S/O.ABBAS MOHAMMED, THYCUTTATHIL VEEDU, MUKKOLAYAKKAL, ATTINKUZHY, KAZHAKUTTOM P.O., ATTIPRA VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** - **2 LAILA BEEVI** - **AGED 57, W/O.ABBAS MOHAMMED, THYCUTTATHIL VEEDU, MUKKOLAYAKKAL, ATTINKUZHY, KAZHAKUTTOM P.O., ATTIPRA VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** ## **BY ADV. SRI.SHAJIN S.HAMEED** ## **RESPONDENTS/STATE & OTHERS:** - **1 STATE OF KERALA THROUGH THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KAZHAKUTTAM POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.** - **2 THE REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICER TRIVANDRUM, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS, PASSPORT OFFICE, SNSM JUNCTION, KARALKADA JUNCTION, PETTAH P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN CODE-695024.** - **3 NISSA MOL AGE 35, D/O.HAWWA UMMAL, VAVARAYAMBALAM KADAYIL VEEDU, MANJAMALA WARD, KEEZHTHONNAKKAL VILLAGE, NEDUMANGAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN CODE-695589.** **R1 BY ASSISTANT SOLICITOR GENERAL R1, R3 BY ADV. SRI.M.R.SASITH R2 BY ADV. SRI.SUVIN.R.MENON SRI.SAIGI JACOB PALATTY, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04.11.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** Crl.M.C No.8172 of 2017 2 # **ALEXANDER THOMAS, J. =========================== Crl.M.C No.8172 of 2017** **===========================** Dated this the 04[th] day of November, 2020 ## **ORDER** The prayer in the aforecaptioned Crl.Miscellaneous case filed under Sec.482 of the Cr.P.C is as follows : _“.............. to quash Annexure-A FIR and all further proceedings against the petitioners in crime no:1015/2017 of Kazhakuttam Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram.”_ 2. Heard Sri.Shajin S.Hameed, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners (accused persons), Sri.Saigi Jacob Palatty, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the 1[st] respondent, Sri.Suvin R.Menon, learned Central Government Counsel appearing for the 2[nd] respondent and Sri.M.R.Sasith Panicker, learned advocate appearing for the contesting respondent No.3. 3. The petitioners are A1 & A2 in Crime No.1015/2017 of Kazhakuttam Police Station registered for offences punishable under Secs.420, 465, 468, 471 read with Sec.34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sec.12(1)(b) of the Passports Act, 1967. The crime was registered based on the statement of the 2[nd] respondent, who is the wife of the Crl.M.C No.8172 of 2017 3 1[st] petitioner. The precise of the allegation in Annexure-A FIR is that the 1[st] accused on a promise to purchase the residential building in the joint name of him and the de facto complaint from his sister sold 85 sovereign of gold ornaments belonging to the de facto complainant, but he purchased the said building in his name alone. Later, when the 1[st] accused ignored to maintain her and children, the de faco complainant filed C.M.P No.387/2013 before the Family Court, Attingal. 4. The 1[st] petitioner herein (A1) had earlier married the 3[rd] respondent. Later, the marital relationship has been dissolved. The 2[nd] petitioner is the mother of the 1[st] petitioner. Apart from the present impugned criminal proceedings, the 3[rd] respondent had also initiated separate criminal proceedings against the petitioners as well certain other members of the family, for the offence punishable under Sec.498A of the Indian Penal Code. It is now brought to the notice of this Court that the entire disputes between the abovesaid former spouses has been resolved and that even the impugned criminal proceedings for offence as per Sec.498A of the IPC initiated at the behest of the 3[rd] respondent has been quashed by this Court as per order dated 13.03.2020 in Crl.M.C No.8172 of 2017 4 Crl.M.C.No.1891/2020. Now it appears that the disputes are between the petitioners and the 3[rd] respondent in this case has already been settled, as can be seen from Annexure-H affidavit dated 26.02.2020 filed by the 3[rd] respondent in this case, which reads as follows: _“I, Nissamol D/o Hauwa Ummal, aged 38 years, residing at Kadayil Veedu, Vavarambalam, Manjamala Ward, Keezhu Thonnakkal Village, Nedumangadu Taluk, Thiruvananthapuram District, do hereby solemnly affirm and sworn as follows:-_ _1. I am the defacto complainant in Crime No1015/2017 of Kazhakoottam Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram District, for offence punishable under 420, 465, 468, 471 and 34 IPC and 12(1)(b) of Passport Act, pending before Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Attingal. It was registered based on my statement. I am conversant with the facts and circumstances of the case and I am competent swear for this affidavit._ _2. The accused persons are my husband and his mother. I gave the statement which lead to registration of said crime due to the existed circumstances. The crime was occurred in connection with some family disputes between us. Now we have settled the entire disputes amicably due to the intervention of Family members and mediators. I filed a petition before Honourable Family Court, Attingal which numbered as OP 1238/2013. The said case was settled through mediation. As per the condition of the settlement agreement, I am settling this case and filing this affidavit. The case against the all accused is settled._ _3. There is no existing grievance for me. The dispute existed between me and the petitioners are purely personal in nature and are not against public Tranquility._ _4. The dispute in the said crime is settled and presently and the entire dispute settled. The continuation of further proceedings in the case is likely to affect the settlement and family harmony._ Crl.M.C No.8172 of 2017 5 _5. As the dispute is settled between us there is no meaning in continuing the proceedings against the petitioners. Therefore I have no objection in quashing all further proceedings against the petitioners.”_ 5. 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 Crl.M.C No.8172 of 2017 6 consider the prayer for quashment. 6. Annexure-B is the sale deed said to have been executed in the joint name of the 1[st] petitioner and the 3[rd] respondent. Annexure-C is the Power of Attorney said to have been executed by the 1[st] petitioner in favour of the 2[nd] petitioner. The allegation in the present criminal proceedings raised by the 3[rd] respondent is that Annexure-C Power of Attorney dated 03.04.2017 is forged, inasmuch as the petitioner was not in India at the time of the alleged execution of Annexure-C Power of Attorney. Annexure-D is the computer extract of the ticket of travel taken by the 1[st] petitioner on 03.04.2017, which would show that the petitioner had come to India on 03.04.2017, Annexure-E is the passport of the 1[st] petitioner, which would show that he has arrived in India on 03.04.2017. Annexure-F is the proceedings of the passport authority, which would show that penalty has been imposed on the 1[st] petitioner and Annexures-G(1) & G(2) are the receipts showing payment of the abovesaid penalty amounts by the petitioner. The impugned criminal proceedings in this case has been arisen in the context of the matrimonial disputes arrived at between the 1[st] petitioner and the 3[rd] respondent. Now the disputes between the said former spouses have been dissolved, as can be seen from Annexure-H. 7. Sri.M.R.Sasith Panicker, learned counsel appearing for the 3[rd] respondent would also submit on the basis of instructions of his party that Crl.M.C No.8172 of 2017 7 the entire disputes between the parties have been resolved by settlement and that the 3[rd] respondent has no objection in quashment of the impugned criminal proceedings in this case as well. 8. In the light of the abovesaid aspects borne out from Annexures-B to G series of documents as well as Annexure-H affidavit of the 1[st] petitioner and also taking note of the fact that this Court has already quashed the other criminal proceedings on the ground of settlement between the parties, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned criminal proceedings in this case would also be the subject matter of quashment. Accordingly, it is ordered that the impugned Annexure-A FIR in Crime No.1015/2017 of Kazhakkuttam Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram as against the petitioners herein and all further proceedings emanating therefrom as against the petitioners/accused will stand quashed and set aside. 9. The petitioners will produce certified copy of this order before the Investigating Officer concerned, for necessary information. With these observations and directions, the above Crl.M.C will stand disposed of. **Sd/ALEXANDER THOMAS JUDGE** vgd Crl.M.C No.8172 of 2017 8 ## **APPENDIX** ||**APPENDIX**| |---|---| |**PETITIONER'S/S**|**EXHIBITS:**| |**ANNEXURE A-**|**CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME**| ||**NO.1015/2017 OF KAZHAKUTTAM POLICE**| ||**STATION.**| |**ANNEXURE B-**|**PHOTOCOPY OF THE SALE DEED EXECUTED ON**| ||**19/11/2017 IN THE JOINT NAME OF 1ST**| ||**PETITIONER AND 3RD RESPONDENT.**| |**ANNEXURE C-**|**PHOTOCOPY OF THE POWER OF ATTORNEY**| ||**EXECUTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER IN FAVOR**| ||**OF THE 2ND PETITIONER.**| |**ANNEXURE D-**|**COMPUTER EXTRACT OF THE TICKET DETAILS OF**| ||**THE TRAVEL OF 1ST PETITIONER.**| |**ANNEXURE E-**|**PHOTOCOPY OF THE PASSPORT OF 1ST**| ||**PETITIONER SHOWING ARRIVAL ON 03/04/2017.**| |**ANNEXURE F-**|**PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER DATED 17/10/2017**| ||**PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.**| |**ANNEXURE G(1)-**|**PHOTOCOPY OF THE PENALTY RECEIPT**| ||**NO.TVPMP17343319317 DATED 17/10/2017.**| |**ANNEXURE G(2)-**|**PHOTOCOPY OF THE PENALTY RECEIPT**| ||**NO.TVPMP17343319275 DATED 17/10/2017.**| |**ANNEXURE H**|**AFFIDAVIT**<br>**EXECUTED**<br>**BY**<br>**THE**<br>**3RD**| ||**RESPONDENT/DE FACTO COMPLAINANT.**|