Muhayudin and Others v. State of Kerala and Mijina

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Sophy Thomas
Judgment Date: 2024-02-28
Court Decision / Holding: This Crl.M.C. is allowed and Annexure B FIR in Crime No.15 of 2024 of Kuruppampady Police Station, Ernakulam stands quashed.
Final Disposition: FIR quashed; Crl.M.C. allowed

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Muhayudin
Shamsudheen TA
Nabeeza CM

Respondents

State of Kerala represented by Public Prosecutor
Station House Officer, Kuruppumpady Police Station, Perumbavoor, Kerala
Mijina (3rd respondent)

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Adv. Shibu Varghese

Counsels for Respondents

• Public Prosecutor
• Sr. Public Prosecutor Sri Vipin Narayanan

Case Synopsis & Summary

This Criminal Miscellaneous Case arises from Crime No. 15/2024 registered at Kuruppampady Police Station, Ernakulam, under Sections 498A, 323, 294(b) and 34 IPC. The petitioners, Muhayudin, Shamsudheen TA and Nabeeza CM, seek to quash Annexure B FIR under Section 482 Cr.P.C. on the basis that a settlement has been arrived at with the de facto complainant, Mijina (3rd respondent). The 3rd respondent, through her counsel, confirms she has no intention to proceed with the prosecution and has no objection to quashing the FIR, supported by Annexure C, an affidavit endorsing the settlement. The Public Prosecutor also confirms the matter is settled. The court notes that continuing the prosecution would serve no purpose and, applying the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Another (2012) 10 SCC 303 and State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan and Others (2019) 5 SCC 688, quashing is warranted on the basis of settlement. Consequently, the Crl.M.C. is allowed and Annexure B FIR in Crime No. 15/2024 is quashed. This decision exemplifies how settlement can terminate criminal proceedings even where IPC offences are involved, in line with the cited constitutional courts’ doctrine.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 482 Cr.P.C.Section 498A IPCSection 323 IPCSection 294(b) IPCSection 34 IPC

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Another, (2012) 10 SCC 303 (principle that quashing is permissible on settlement in appropriate cases)
State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan and Others, (2019) 5 SCC 688 (settlement can justify quashing of FIRs)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners submitted that settlement has been reached with the de facto complainant, who has filed Annexure C affirming the settlement. The applicants contend that quashing the FIR is the appropriate outcome to avoid unnecessary prosecution where parties have resolved their disputes, citing Gian Singh and Laxmi Narayan as guiding authorities. They assert no further purpose is served by continuing the case.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents, led by the Public Prosecutor and with the support of the 3rd respondent, contend that where a settlement exists, the court may exercise its inherent power to quash the FIR under Section 482 Cr.P.C., particularly in the interests of substantial justice, relying on the cited Supreme Court precedents.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Another	(2012) 10 SCC 303	Positive	The court relies on Gian Singh to justify quashing on settlement in appropriate cases even where non-compoundable offences are involved, aligning with the settled jurisprudence.
State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan and Others	(2019) 5 SCC 688	Positive	The decision reinforces that a valid settlement can justify quashing of an FIR, supporting the present order.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## _`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`_ ## _`PRESENT`_ ``` THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SOPHY THOMAS ``` ``` WEDNESDAY, THE 28[TH] DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 9TH PHALGUNA, 1945 ``` ``` CRL.MC NO. 716 OF 2024 ``` ``` CRIME NO.15/2024 OF Kuruppampady Police Station, Ernakulam ``` ## _`PETITIONERS`_ ``` 1MUHAYUDIN AGED 35 YEARS S/O SHAMSUDHEEN, THONDUVILAPURAYIDAM HOUSE, MANAKKAPADY, VATTEKATTUPADY, IRINGOLE, PERUMBAVOOR VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT., PIN – 683545 2SHAMSUDHEEN T A AGED 57 YEARS S/O ASSAINARKUNJ, THONDUVILAPURAYIDAM HOUSE, MANAKKAPADY, VATTEKATTUPADY, IRINGOLE, PERUMBAVOOR VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN – 683545 3NABEEZA CM AGED 55 YEARS W/O SHAMSUDHEEN, THONDUVILAPURAYIDAM HOUSE, MANAKKAPADY, VATTEKATTUPADY, IRINGOLE, PERUMBAVOOR VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN – 683545 ``` ``` BY ADV SHIBU VARGHESE ``` ## _`RESPONDENTS`_ ``` 1STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN – 682031 2STATION HOUSE OFFICER KURUPPANPADI POLICE STATION, PERUMBAVOOR, KERALA, PIN - 683545 ``` Crl.M.C No.716 of 2024 2 ``` 3MIJINA AGED 33 YEARS W/O MUHAYUDIN, THONDUVILA HOUSE, MANAKKAPADY, VATTEKKATTUPADY, IRINGOLE, PERUMBAVOOR VILLAGE, PERUMBAVOOR VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 683545 ``` ## _`OTHER PRESENT:`_ ``` SR.PP-SRI.VIPIN NARAYANAN ``` ``` THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28.02.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ``` Crl.M.C No.716 of 2024 3 ## **O R D E R** This Crl.M.C., under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., is filed by accused Nos.1 to 3 in Crime No.15 of 2024 of Kuruppampady Police Station, Ernakulam, registered under Sections 498A, 323, 294(b) and 34 of IPC, for quashing Annexure B FIR in Crime No.15 of 2024 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-III, Perumbavoor. 2. The prosecution allegation is that, the accused, who are the husband and parents-in-law of the de facto complainant/3rd respondent, subjected her to matrimonial cruelties, demanding more gold and money. 3. When the matter is taken up for consideration, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the matter stands settled between themselves and the defacto complainant/3rd respondent. The defacto complainant entered appearance through counsel, and Crl.M.C No.716 of 2024 4 submitted that the matter is settled, and Annexure C is the affidavit filed by her, endorsing the settlement. Neither she has any intention to proceed with the prosecution, nor any objection in quashing Annexure B FIR in Crime No.15 of 2024. 4. On instructions, learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the matter is settled, and produced the signed statement of the 3[rd] respondent, to the effect that she is not intending to proceed with the prosecution, and she has no objection in quashing Annexure B FIR in Crime No.15 of 2024. 5. Since the matter stands settled, no purpose would be served by continuing the prosecution against the petitioners. 6. In the light of the principles laid down by the Apex Court in _**Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Another;**_ [(2012) 10 SCC 303)] _**,**_ and _**State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan and Others;**_ [(2019) 5 Crl.M.C No.716 of 2024 5 SCC 688], this Court is of the view that the proceedings against the petitioners can be quashed on the basis of settlement. In the result, this Crl.M.C. is allowed and Annexure B FIR in Crime No.15 of 2024 of of Kuruppampady Police Station, Ernakulam stands quashed. Sd/- **SOPHY THOMAS JUDGE** RMV Crl.M.C No.716 of 2024 6 ## _`APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 716/2024`_ |_`PETITIONER`_|_`ANNEXURES`_| |---|---| |_`Annexure A`_|_`CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIS IN CRIME`_| ||_`NO.15/2024 OF PERUMBAVOOR POLICE`_| ||_`STATION DATED 04.01.2024.`_| |_`Annexure B`_|_`CERTIFIED COPY OF FIR OF CRIME`_| ||_`NO.15/2024 OF PERUMBAVOOR POLICE`_| ||_`STATION DATED 04.01.2024.`_| |_`Annexure C`_|_`AN AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 3RD`_| ||_`RESPONDENT/DE-FACTO COMPLAINANT DATED`_| ||_`16.01.2024`_| Crl.M.C No.716 of 2024 7 Crl.M.C No.716 of 2024 8