High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeQuashed; FIR and final report quashed along wit...

Sufaid and others v. State of Kerala

Case / Petition Number:CRL.M.C. NO.159 OF 2024

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • C. S. Dias
Judgment Date
2024-03-11
Court Decision / Holding
Crl.M.C. allowed; Annexure A1 FIR and Annexure A2 Final Report in Crime No.911/2022 of Chandera Police Station, Kasargod, and all further proceedings in CC No.35/2023 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Hosdurg, Kasargod, are quashed as against the petitioners.
Final Disposition
Quashed; FIR and final report quashed along with all further proceedings against petitioners.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • SUFAID AGED 32 YEARS S/O USMAN TA, FATHIMA MANZIL THURUTHI KASABA VILLAGE KASARGOD, KERALA, PIN - 671351
  • USMAN TA AGED 62 YEARS S/O ABDUL KADHAR HAJI FATHIMA MANZIL THURUTHI KASABA VILLAGE KASARGOD, KERALA, PIN - 671351
  • SUBAIDA P V AGED 54 YEARS W/O USMAN TA, FATHIMA MANZIL THURUTHI KASABA VILLAGE KASARGOD, KERALA, PIN - 671351
  • FATHIMA T A AGED 20 YEARS D/O USMAN TA, FATHIMA MANZIL THURUTHI KASABA VILLAGE KASARGOD, KERALA, PIN - 671351

Respondents

  • State of Kerala through the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam
  • Station House Officer, Chandera Police Station, Kasargod District
  • Fathima Ismail

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • Sri. R. Anas Muhammed

Counsels for Respondents

  • • Sri. C. S. Hrithwik - Senior Public Prosecutor
  • • Sri. Thareek T. S.
  • • Sri. Mohanan Pillai M.B. (K/2002/2023)

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a Criminal Miscellaneous Case (Crl.M.C. No.159 of 2024) filed under Section 482 CrPC seeking to quash the FIR No. 911/2022 registered at Chandera Police Station, Kasargod, and all further proceedings in CC No. 35/2023 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Hosdurg, Kasargod. The petitioners—four accused—are alleged to have subjected the third respondent, the defacto complainant, to dowry-related cruelty under Section 498A IPC. The petition contends that the dispute has been amicably settled, evidenced by Annexure A3, with the third respondent swearing that she has no subsisting grievance and does not oppose quashing. The Investigating Officer reports the settlement as genuine; the third respondent corroborates; and the State, through the Public Prosecutor, also supports quashing since the offences are not serious and there is no public interest in continuation. Citing Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Prabhatbhai Aahir v. State of Gujarat (and others), the court notes that where there is an amicable settlement and the offence is not grave, the inherent power of the High Court under Section 482 CrPC permits quashing to secure ends of justice and social harmony. The court accordingly allows the Crl.M.C and quashes the FIR, the final report, and all further proceedings against the petitioners.

Provisions of Law Cited

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

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

  • Inherent power of the High Court under Section 482 CrPC to quash FIR and proceedings
  • Amicable settlement between parties can justify quashing where offences are not serious and no public interest involved
  • Ends of justice doctrine
  • Harmony in society as a consequence of settlement

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners submit that there is an amicable settlement with the third respondent, evidenced by Annexure A3, with the third respondent swearing to have no subsisting grievance and not opposing quashing. Investigating Officer confirms the settlement as genuine. Given the non-serious nature of the offences and lack of public interest, quashing under the inherent power of 482 CrPC is proper to secure ends of justice and societal harmony.

Contentions of Respondents

The State and the defacto complainant support quashing in light of the amicable settlement; Annexure A3 is genuine; the offences are not serious and there is no public interest in continuing the proceedings.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab2012 (10) SCC 303PositiveUsed to justify quashing under the ends-of-justice principle in the presence of amicable settlement and non-serious offences.
Prabatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and others v. State of Gujarat and another(2017) 9 SCC 641PositiveAffirms that amicable settlements may lead to quashing where offences are not serious and there is no public interest in continuing prosecution.

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 Sufaid and others 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 C.S.DIAS`** ``` MONDAY, THE 11[TH] DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 21ST PHALGUNA, 1945 ``` ## **`CRL.MC NO. 159 OF 2024`** ``` CRIME NO.911/2022 OF CHANDERA POLICE STATION, KASARGOD AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN CC NO.35 OF 2023 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -I,HOSDRUG ``` ## **`PETITIONERS/ACCUSED:`** - **`1 SUFAID AGED 32 YEARS S/O USMAN TA ,FATHIMA MANZIL THURUTHI KASABA VILLAGE KASARGOD ,KERALA, PIN - 671351`** - **`2 USMAN TA AGED 62 YEARS S/O ABDUL KADHAR HAJI FATHIMA MANZIL THURUTHI KASABA VILLAGE KASARGOD ,KERALA, PIN - 671351`** - **`3 SUBAIDA P V AGED 54 YEARS W/O USMAN TA ,FATHIMA MANZIL THURUTHI KASABA VILLAGE KASARGOD ,KERALA, PIN - 671351`** - **`4 FATHIMA T A AGED 20 YEARS D/O USMAN TA ,FATHIMA MANZIL THURUTHI KASABA VILLAGE KASARGOD ,KERALA, PIN - 671351 BY ADV R.ANAS MUHAMMED SHAMNAD`** ## **`RESPONDENTS/STATE:`** - **`1 STATE OF KERALA THROUGH THE LEARNED PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682031`** - **`2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER CHANDERA POLICE STATION ,KASARGOD DISRTICT, PIN - 671310`** ``` 2 ``` ``` Crl.M.C. NO.159 OF 2024 ``` ``` 3FATHIMA ISMAIL AG HOUSE MATTAMEL ,SOUTH THRIKKARIPPUR KASARGOD DISTRICT, PIN - 671310 ``` ``` BY ADVS. SRI. C. S. HRITHWIK- SENIOR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THAREEK T.S. MOHANAN PILLAI M.B.(K/2002/2023) ``` ``` THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11.03.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` 3 ``` ## **`Crl.M.C. NO.159 OF 2024`** **C. S. DIAS, J.** **-------------------------------------------------------Crl. M.C. No. 159 OF 2024 ------------------------------------------------------Dated this the 11[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 in Crime No.911/2022 of Chandera Police Station, Kasargod and all further proceedings in C.C. No.35/2023 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Hosdurg, Kasargod. 2. The petitioners are the accused Nos. 1 to 4 in the above crime, registered against them at the instance of the third respondent, for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code,1860. ``` 4 ``` ## **`Crl.M.C. NO.159 OF 2024`** 3. The prosecution allegation is that: the first accused is the husband of the third respondent. The accused 1 to 4 harassed and mentally and physically tortured the third respondent by demanding more dowry. Thus, the accused have committed the above offences. 4. Heard; Sri. R. Anas Muhammed, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Sri. C. S. Hrithwik, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 and Sri. Thareek T. S., the learned counsel appearing for the third respondent/defacto complainant. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners have amicably settled the dispute with the third respondent, who has voluntarily executed Annexure A3 affidavit, stating that she has no subsisting grievance against the ``` 5 ``` ## **`Crl.M.C. NO.159 OF 2024`** petitioners and she 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, submitted that the Investigating Officer has ascertained and reported that the subject matter in dispute between the parties has been settled and the third respondent has voluntarily signed Annexure A3 affidavit. 7. The learned counsel for the third respondent also submitted that the dispute between the parties have been settled and the third respondent has voluntarily signed Annexure A3 affidavit. 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** ``` 6 ``` ## **`Crl.M.C. NO.159 OF 2024`** **others vs. State of Gujarat and another** [(2017) 9 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 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 placed on record, particularly after going through Annexure A3 affidavit sworn in by the third 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 in involved, the chances of conviction is ``` 7 ``` ## **`Crl.M.C. NO.159 OF 2024`** 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. 10. In the result, the Crl.M.C is allowed by quashing Annexure A1 First Information Report (FIR) and Annexure A2 Final Report in Crime No.911/2022 of Chandera Police Station, Kasargod and all further proceedings in C.C. No.35/2023 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Hosdurg, Kasargod, as against the petitioners. The Crl.M.C is ordered accordingly. **Sd/C.S. DIAS JUDGE** BR ``` 8 ``` ## **`Crl.M.C. NO.159 OF 2024`** ## **`APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 159/2024`** |**`PETITIONER’S`**|**`ANNEXURES`**| |---|---| |**`Annexure A1`**|**`A CERTIFIED COPY OF FIRST INFORMATION`**| ||**`REPORT CRIME NO. 911/2022 OF THE`**| ||**`CHANDERA POLICE STATION`**| |**`Annexure A2`**|**`A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE CHARGE SHEET IN`**| ||**`CRIME NO.911/2022 OF CHANDERA POLICE`**| ||**`STATION`**| |**`Annexure 3`**|**`ORIGINAL OF THE AFFIDAVIT DATED`**| ||**`30/12/2023 SWORN BY THE RESPONDENT 3`**| ``` RESPONDENT’S ANNEXURES: NIL ```