High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2017-02-20Petition allowed; proceedings quashed against t...

Shafeeq A. S/o Latheef v. State of Kerala

Case / Petition Number:Crl.M.C. No. 1071 of 2017

Neutral Citation:/

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Raja Vijayaraghavan V.
Judgment Date: 2017-02-20
Court Decision / Holding: The High Court allows the petition under Section 482 CrPC; the final report and all proceedings in SC No. 287/2012 are quashed, effectively terminating the prosecution against the petitioner.
Final Disposition: Petition allowed; proceedings quashed against the petitioner in SC No. 287/2012 and related final report

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Shafeeq A. s/o Latheef

Respondents

State of Kerala
K. Sajid
Irfana E

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri G. Sreekumar (Chelur)

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri P. V. Anoop
• Sri E. C. Bineesh

Case Synopsis & Summary

This petition arises under Section 482 CrPC seeking to quash proceedings in SC No. 287/2012 arising from Kannur Town Police Station Crime No. 922/2011 (initially registered as a missing woman case and subsequently connected to Section 366A IPC). The petitioner, Shafeeq A., aged about 23 at the relevant time, reportedly eloped with the 3rd respondent, Irfana E, who was then about 21. The de facto complainant is the uncle of the 3rd respondent, and the matter went to the Sessions Court, where the case stands as SC No. 287/2012. It is alleged that the couple eloped due to family opposition; there is no allegation of sexual assault against the petitioner. The 3rd respondent is now four months pregnant and living abroad with her husband; she and the 2nd and 3rd respondents contend that prosecuting the matter would ruin her family life. The Public Prosecutor indicates no serious objection to quashing given the circumstances. The High Court reiterates that the power to quash under Section 482 CrPC is extraordinary and must be exercised with care; while gravely serious crimes are not typically quashed, the Court may do so depending on the facts and gravity of the offence, guided by Gian Singh and Narinder Singh. In light of the parties’ resolutions and the lack of prima facie evidence of coercion or harm, the Court allows the petition and quashes the proceedings against the petitioner.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 482 of the Code of Criminal ProcedureSection 366A of the IPC

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 CrPC to quash criminal proceedings; not a power identical to compounding under Section 320 CrPC, and must be exercised with regard to the gravity and nature of the crime.
Quashing depends on facts and circumstances of each case; no universal category; gravely serious offences (e.g., murder, rape, dacoity) cannot be quashed.
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab are cited as guiding lights for exercising inherent powers under 482 CrPC.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner submits that there is no allegation of sexual assault against him, and that both he and the 3rd respondent have married and are living with their families. They argue that the elopement was due to parental opposition and that the present prosecution is unnecessary harassment that affects the 3rd respondent’s family life. The petition emphasizes that neither a grave offence nor coercive acts are proven, the 3rd respondent is pregnant, and continuing the prosecution serves no legitimate public interest given the resolved personal dispute. The applicants contend that quashing under 482 CrPC is appropriate in the circumstances, consistent with balancing societal interest and individual rights, and appropriate given the lack of harm to the 3rd respondent and minimal likelihood of conviction.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents argue that the 3rd respondent’s pregnancy and abroad residence would be endangered by prosecution and that family life should be protected; they state that the de facto complainant’s testimony has been recorded and that while the allegations are serious, quashing proceedings would be in the interest of justice where the couple has resolved their differences and where continuing the case would cause unnecessary hardship. They emphasize that the state has no objection to quashing as the 3rd respondent is married and living a stable life, and the matter involves private dispute between families rather than a crime affecting public safety.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab	(2012) 10 SCC 303	Mentioned Only	Cited as guiding principle for the exercise of inherent power under 482 CrPC; used to illustrate that the decision depends on facts and gravity of the offence without prescribing a fixed category.
Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab	(2014) 6 SCC 466	Mentioned Only	Cited as guiding light for balancing ends of justice and the need to consider private settlement; not treated as directly overruling or distinguishing the present facts.

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 Shafeeq A. S/o Latheef v. State of Kerala 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 RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V** **MONDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2017/1ST PHALGUNA, 1938** **Crl.MC.No. 1071 of 2017 () ---------------------------** **SC 287/2012 of ADDL.D.C. & ADDL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT I,THALASSERY CRIME NO. 922/2011 OF KANNUR TOWN , KANNUR** ## **PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED:** **---------------------** **SHAFEEQ .A S/O. LATHEEF, AGED 23 YEARS, LAZ MANZIL, KURUVA, KANJIRAVAYAL, KANNUR.** **BY ADV. SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR)** ## **RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:** **-------------------------------------** ## **1. STATE OF KERALA** - **REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM** **2. K.SAJID** **S/O. HAMSA, AGED 47 YEARS, ROULA MANZIL, THANKEKKUNNU ROAD, THAZHE CHOVVA, KANNUR - 6.** **3. IRFANA E** **D/O. KOYANJI, AGED 21 YEARS, ROULA MANZIL, THANKEKKUNNU ROAD, THAZHE CHOVVA, KANNUR - 6.** **R2,3 BY ADV. SRI.P.V.ANOOP R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.E.C. BINEESH** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20-02-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** ## **Crl.MC.No. 1071 of 2017 ()** ## **---------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES** **-----------------------** **AI CERTIFIED COPY OF THE F.I.S IN CRIME NO. 922 OF 2011 OF KANNUR TOWN POLICE STATION.** **AII CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NUMBER 922 OF 2011 OF KANNUR TOWN POLICE STATION.** **AIII AFFIDAVIT DATED 23.1.2017 SWORN BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.** **AIV AFFIDAVIT DATED 23.1.2017 SWORN BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.** **RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES: NIL** **-----------------------** **TRUE COPY** **P.A. TO JUDGE.** **kp** ## **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V., J** - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ## Crl.M.C. No. 1071 of 2017 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated 20[th] February, 2017 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ## **ORDER** - 1.This petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. - 2.On the basis of information furnished by the 2[nd] respondent, who is the uncle of the 3[rd] respondent herein, Crime No.922 of 2011 of Kannur Police Station was registered on 29.9.2011 under the caption “woman missing” by the Sub Inspector of Police, Kannur Police Station. - 3.According to the de facto complainant, his niece who was living with his sister and studying in Plus one class was missing from 22.7.2011 onwards. Investigation revealed that the petitioner herein who was 18 years of age at the relevant point of time was in love with 3[rd] respondent and they had eloped. The 3[rd] respondent was traced out and was produced before the learned Magistrate from where Crl.M.C. No.1071 of 2017 -2- she was released to the custody of the 2[nd] respondent. Thereafter, Section 366A of the IPC was incorporated and after conclusion of investigation final report was laid before the Judicial Magistrate of 1[st] Class-I Kannur, which has been committed to the Court of Sessions and the case is now pending as S.C.No.287 of 2012 on the file of the Additional Sessions Court-I, Thalassery. 4.It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the petitioner was in love with the 3[rd] respondent. It is submitted that since their relationship was objected by the parents of the 3[rd] respondent they had decided to elope. It is further submitted that there is no allegation that the petitioner had committed any sexual assault on the victim. It is finally submitted that the petitioner as well as the 3[rd] respondent have married and are residing with their respective families. - 5.Placing reliance on the affidavits sworn to by respondents Crl.M.C. No.1071 of 2017 -3- - 2 and 3, it is submitted that they have resolved the matter and it will not be in the interest of justice to continue with the criminal prosecution. - 6.The learned counsel for respondents 2 and 3 would submit that the 3[rd] respondent is now 4 months pregnant and is residing abroad with her husband. It is also submitted that her family life will be shattered if she is made to depose in terms of the offence before the jurisdictional court. According to the learned counsel, it is in the best interest of the 3[rd] respondent that the prosecution in the instant matter be terminated. - 7.The learned Public Prosecutor on instructions would submit that statement of the de facto complainant has been recorded. It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor, though the allegations raised are serious, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the State has no serious objection in quashing the proceedings as the 3[rd] Crl.M.C. No.1071 of 2017 -4- respondent has married and is living happily with her family. - 8.I have considered the submissions. 9.The legal position with regard to quashing of proceedings on the basis of compromise between the parties is by now well settled. It has been held that the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal Court for compounding the offences under S.320 of the Code. In what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or FIR may be exercised where the offender and victim have settled their dispute would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no category can be prescribed. However, before exercise of such power, the Court will have to give due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime. It is also settled that heinous and Crl.M.C. No.1071 of 2017 -5- serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc., cannot quashed even though the victim or victim's family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such offenses are not private in nature and have serious impact on society. The directions of the Apex Court in **Gian singh v. State of Punjab** [(2012) 10 SCC 303] and in **Narinder singh v. State of Punjab** [(2014) 6 SCC 466 ] serve as guiding lights. 10.In the instant case, the 3[rd] respondent had eloped with the petitioner when their relationship was objected to by the family. The materials do not reveal that the ingredients of Section 366A of the IPC is attracted in the instant case. No harm was caused to the 3[rd] respondent. The prosecution records only reveals that the petitioner and the 3[rd] respondent had travelled to various places. The prosecution has no case that the petitioner had induced the 3[rd] respondent to go from any place with Crl.M.C. No.1071 of 2017 -6- knowledge that she would be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse with another person. In that view of the matter, the offence under Section 366A of the IPC will not be made out. 11.I also take note of the fact that this is not one of those cases wherein the allegations reek of extreme depravity, perversity or cruelty. It cannot be said that the offence in the instant case would fall in the category of offences that have a serious impact on society. In the peculiar facts of the instant case, grave hardship and inconvenience will be caused to the 3[rd] respondent if the prosecution is permitted to continue. When the respondent No. 2 and 3 have asserted that they are not desirous of prosecuting her husband any further, the prospects of an ultimate conviction is remote and bleak. Further more, the 3[rd] respondent can continue with her life with dignity and respect. Having considered all the relevant circumstances, Crl.M.C. No.1071 of 2017 -7- I am of the considered view that this is a fit case in which this Court will be well justified in invoking its extra ordinary powers under Section 482 of the Code to quash the proceedings. In the result this petition will stand allowed. Annexure-2 final report and all proceedings pursuant thereto against the petitioner now pending as S.C.No.287 of 2012 on the file of the Additional Sessions Court-I, Thalassery are quashed. ## **Sd/-** **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V., JUDGE** kp/20.02.17