Tenetowl LogoTenetowl
High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeCrl.M.C allowed; FIR No. 0043/2023 and final re...

Muhammed Muhsin, Akberali, Sainaba, MUFLAF and Noora v. State of Kerala and Shafin

Case / Petition Number:CRL.M.C. No. 1723 of 2024

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • C. S. Dias
Judgment Date
2024-03-19
Court Decision / Holding
The Crl.M.C is allowed by quashing Annexure-A1 FIR & Annexure-A2 Final report in Crime No.43/2023 of Pattambi Police Station, Palakkad and all further proceedings in C.C.No.47/2023 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Pattambi, Palakkad, as against the petitioners.
Final Disposition
Crl.M.C allowed; FIR No. 0043/2023 and final report quashed; all further proceedings in CC No. 47/2023 against the petitioners quashed.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • MUHAMMED MUHSIN
  • AKBERALI
  • SAINABA
  • MUFLAF
  • NOORA

Respondents

  • STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA
  • SHAFIN

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • Amal Parthasaradhy

Counsels for Respondents

  • • Gibi C. George

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a criminal miscellaneous case (Crl.M.C. No.1723 of 2024) filed under Section 482 CrPC seeking to quash FIR No.043/2023 of Pattambi Police Station and the final report in CC No.47/2023 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court Pattambi. The petitioners, five accused in Crime No.43/2023, are Muhammed Muhsin, Akberali, Sainaba, MUFLAF and Noora. The second respondent is Shafin, the wife of the first accused; the first respondent is the State of Kerala. The matter arises from alleged offences under Section 498A read with Section 34 IPC. The petition argued that the dispute between the parties had been amicably settled, with the second respondent executing Annexure-A3 affidavit stating she has no objection to quashing further proceedings. The Investigating Officer reported that the matter had been settled, and that the petitioners and second respondent had resumed cohabitation. The Public Prosecutor and second respondent also supported quashing given the lack of subsisting grievance. The High Court invoked its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC and relied on Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Prabatbhai Aahir v. State of Gujarat, both emphasizing that where there is an amicable settlement and offences are not serious, continuing criminal proceedings would not serve the ends of justice. The court therefore allowed the Crl.M.C., quashing the FIR, the final report, and all further proceedings.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973Section 498A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

  • Inherent power of the High Court under Section 482 CrPC to quash criminal proceedings
  • Amicable settlement between parties can justify quashing where offences are not serious and no public interest is involved
  • Ends of justice as guiding principle in exercise of inherent jurisdiction

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners submit that the subject matter in dispute between the petitioners and the second respondent has been amicably settled outside the court. The second respondent executed Annexure-A3 affidavit stating that she has no objection to quashing further proceedings. The first accused and the second respondent have resumed cohabitation, as per the police report. The offences alleged in Crime No.43/2023 under Sec. 498A read with Sec. 34 IPC are not of a grave nature, and there is no public interest involved. The petitioners contend that continuing criminal proceedings would be an unnecessary waste of judicial time and would undermine the harmony sought by the settlement. They rely on the inherent power of this Court under Section 482 CrPC to quash such proceedings where the parties have amicably resolved their disputes and the offences are not serious. They contend that the ends of justice would be better served by quashing the FIR and final report and by closing the matter entirely in the interests of both the petitioners and the second respondent. The petitioners request the Court to exercise its discretion and grant quashment, to prevent further proceedings that would be futile given the factual backdrop.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents/State urge that the matter has been settled and there is no subsisting grievance; The Investigating Officer has verified the settlement and Annexure-A3; The second respondent has no objection; The Court should apply the principle that where the offences are not serious and there is amicable settlement, quashing is permissible under 482 CrPC to secure ends of justice; The State’s duty to uphold public interest may be outweighed by the settlement in these circumstances; The court is entitled to exercise inherent power to quash as long as there is no public interest; The present case qualifies; The final order may quash and close the matter.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab2012 (10) SCC 303PositiveCited to justify quashing where amicable settlement exists and offences are not serious; ends of justice and lack of public interest support exercise of 482 CrPC power.
Prabatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur v. State of Gujarat and another2017 (9) SCC 641PositiveSimilarly cited for the principle that amicable settlements in non-serious cases permit quashing to secure ends of justice.

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 Muhammed Muhsin, Akberali, Sainaba, MUFLAF and Noora v. State of Kerala and Shafin 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 C.S.DIAS ``` ``` TUESDAY, THE 19[TH] DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 29TH PHALGUNA, 1945 ``` ``` CRL.MC NO. 1723 OF 2024 ``` ``` CRIME NO.0043/2023 OF PATTAMBI POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD AGAINST THE ORDER DATED IN CC NO.47 OF 2023 OF MUNSIFF MAGISTRATE COURT,PATTAMBI ``` ## **`PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 TO 5:`** - **`1 MUHAMMED MUHSIN AGED 33 YEARS`** ``` S/O AKBARALI, KEEDAKKALLAN HOUSE, MILLUMPADI, THIRUNARAYANAPURAM, PULAMANTHOLE, MALAPPURAM, PIN - 679323 ``` - **`2 AKBERALI AGED 53 YEARS`** ``` S/O MUHAMMAD, KEEDAKKALLAN HOUSE, MILLUMPADI, THIRUNARAYANAPURAM, PULAMANTHOLE, MALAPPURAM, PIN - 679323 ``` - **`3 SAINABA AGED 50 YEARS`** ``` W/O AKBARALI, KEEDAKKALLAN HOUSE, MILLUMPADI, THIRUNARAYANAPURAM, PULAMANTHOLE, MALAPPURAM-, PIN - 679323 ``` - **`4 MUFLAF AGED 26 YEARS`** - **`.S/O AKBARALI, KEEDAKKALLAN HOUSE, MILLUMPADI, THIRUNARAYANAPURAM, PULAMANTHOLE, MALAPPURAM-, PIN - 679323`** - **`5 NOORA AGED 20 YEARS`** ``` D/O AKBARALI, KEEDAKKALLAN HOUSE, MILLUMPADI, THIRUNARAYANAPURAM, PULAMANTHOLE, MALAPPURAM, PIN - 679323 ``` ## **`BY ADV AMAL PARTHASARADHY`** Crl.M.C.No.1723 of 2024 ## -:2:- ## **`RESPONDENTS:`** - **`1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031`** ``` 2SHAFIN AGED 27 YEARS D/O SAIDAL AVI, MADATHIL VALAPPIL HOUSE, THEKKUMURI, PATTAMBI, PALAKKAD-, PIN - 679303 ``` ## **`BY ADV GIBI C GEORGE`** ## **`OTHER PRESENT:`** ## **`SR PP SMT SEETHA S`** ``` 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.1723 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-A1 First Information Report [FIR] & Annexure-A2 Final report and all further proceedings in C.C.No.47/2023 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Pattambi, Palakkad. 2. The petitioners are the accused 1 to 5 in Crime No.43/2023 of the Pattambi Police Station, Palakkad, registered against them at the instance of the second respondent, for allegedly committing the offence punishable under Section 498-A r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code,1860. 3. The crux of the prosecution is that: the first accused was married to the second respondent on Crl.M.C.No.1723 of 2024 ## -:4:- 05.04.2015. During the period of the cohabitation, the accused 1 and 5 had mentally and physically harassed the second respondent. Thus, the accused have committed the above offences. 4. Heard; Sri.Amal Parthasaradhy, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Smt.Seetha.S., the learned Senior Public Prosecutor appearing for the first respondent and Sri. Gibi C. George, 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 out of court, and the second respondent has voluntarily executed Annexure A3 affidavit, stating that she has no objection and in all further proceedings in the above crime being quashed. Hence, the petition may be allowed. Crl.M.C.No.1723 of 2024 -:5:- 6.The learned Public Prosecutor, on instructions, submitted that the Investigating Officer has ascertained and reported that the subject matter in dispute between the parties has been settled and the second respondent has voluntarily executed Annexure-A3 affidavit, and further that the first petitioner and second respondent have resumed cohabitation. 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 Crl.M.C.No.1723 of 2024 ## -:6:- SCC 641] has held that in the facts and circumstances of a case and to secure the ends of justice, where the High Court is satisfied that an amicable settlement has been arrived at between the parties and the offences are 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-A3 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 Crl.M.C.No.1723 of 2024 ## -:7:- 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-A1 First Information Report [FIR] & Annexure-A2 Final report in Crime No.43/2023 of Pattambi Police Station, Palakkad and all further proceedings in C.C.No.47/2023 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Pattambi, Palakkad, as against the petitioners. The Crl.M.C is ordered accordingly. Sd/- **C.S.DIAS,JUDGE** mtk/19.03.24 Crl.M.C.No.1723 of 2024 -:8:- ## **`APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 1723/2024`** ``` PETITIONER ANNEXURES ANNEXURE 1CERTIFIED COPY OF F.I.R. IN CRIME NO 0043/2023 OF PATTAMBI POLICE STATION ANNEXURE 2CERTIFIED COPY OF FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO.0043/2023 OF PATTAMBI POLICE STATION ANNEXURE 3AFFIDAVIT DATED 17THFEBRUARY 2024 SWORN BY 2ND THE RESPONDENT ```