Surayya Khanum and Sadiya Firdose v. State of Kerala and Shahida (de facto complainant)

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH FRIDAY, THE 25[TH] DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022 / 4TH AGRAHAYANA,** ## **1944** **CRL.MC NO. 7716 OF 2022** **CC 558/2013 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT,** ## **NILAMBUR** ## **PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.2 &3:** **1 SURAYYA KHANUM AGED 71 YEARS W/O. SAYYED ABDUL RASHEED, DOOR NO. MIG 418, 1ST STAGE, 1ST CROSS, RAJU NAGAR, MYSORE DISTRICT, KARNATAKA, PIN - 570007 2 SADIYA FIRDOSE AGED 39 YEARS W/O. SAYYED ABDUL RASHEED, DOOR NO. MIG 418, 1ST STAGE, 1ST CROSS RAJU NAGAR, MYSORE DISTRICT, KARNATAKA, PIN - 570007 BY ADVS. SUNIL KUMAR A.G GEORGE MATHEW PRAVEEN S. DIPU JAMES MATHEW K.T. GEORGE K.V. STEPHY K REGI** ## **RESPONDENTS/STATE & DE FACTO COMPLAINANAT:** **1 STATE OF KERALA REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM PIN - 682031 2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER EDAKKARA POLICE STATION, EDAKKARA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT PIN - 679331** ## **CRL.MC NO. 7716 OF 2022** **==> picture [19 x 7] intentionally omitted <==** **3 SHAHIDA AGED 43 YEARS D/O. MUHAMMED, PERUMPALLATH HOUSE, EDAKKARA AMSOM, EDAKKARA P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT PIN - 679331** **BY SRI.P.G.MANU, SR.P.P.** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25.11.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** ## **CRL.MC NO. 7716 OF 2022** **==> picture [19 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** ## **O R D E R** This Crl.M.C. has been preferred to quash all further proceedings pursuant to Annexure-A2 Final Report in C.C.No.558 of 2013 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Nilambur on the ground of settlement between the parties. 2. Altogether, there are three accused. The petitioners are the accused Nos.2 & 3. The 3[rd] respondent is the _de facto_ complainant. 3. The offences alleged against the accused are punishable under Sections 498A, 406 r/w 34 of IPC. 4. An affidavit sworn in by the _de facto_ complainant/3[rd] respondent is produced. 5. I have heard Sri.Sunil Kumar A.G, the learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri. P.G. Manu, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor. 6. The averments in the petition as well as the affidavit sworn in by the 3[rd] respondent would show that the entire dispute between the accused Nos.2 & 3 ## **CRL.MC NO. 7716 OF 2022** **==> picture [19 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** with the _de facto_ complainant has been amicably settled and the _de facto_ complainant has decided not to proceed with the crime against the accused Nos.2 & 3 any further. The learned Public Prosecutor, on instruction, submits that the matter was inquired into through the investigating officer, and a statement of the _de facto_ complainant was also recorded wherein she reported that the dispute with the accused Nos.2 & 3 was amicably settled. 7. The Apex Court in _**Gian Singh v. State of Punjab**_ [2012 (4) KLT 108 (SC)], _**Narinder Singh and Others v. State of Punjab and Others**_ [(2014) 6 SCC 466] and _**State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan and Others**_ [(2019) 5 SCC 688] has held that the High Court invoking S.482 of Cr.P.C can quash criminal proceedings in relation to non-compoundable offence where the parties have settled the matter between themselves notwithstanding the bar under S.320 of Cr.P.C. if it is warranted in the given facts and circumstances of the case or to ensure ends of ## **CRL.MC NO. 7716 OF 2022** **==> picture [18 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** justice or to prevent abuse of process of any Court. 8. It is true that the settlement was arrived at between the 3[rd] respondent (de facto complainant) and the accused Nos.2 & 3 alone, who are the petitioners. No settlement was arrived at with the remaining accused. Hence, the question is whether the FIR/Final Report against some of the accused alone could be quashed on the ground of settlement invoking S.482 of Cr.P.C. The Apex Court _**in Lovely Salhotra and Another v. State NCT of Delhi and Another**_ [(2018) 12 SCC 391] quashed the proceedings against one of the accused alone, invoking S.482 of Cr.P.C. That was a case where the High Court refused to quash the proceeding holding that the FIR cannot be quashed in part. True, in the said case, the Apex Court had taken into account the facts of the case that no cognizable offence was made out. The Apex Court, on facts, also found that no offence was made out against the appellant/accused therein. However, the principle that could be deduced from the dictum laid ## **CRL.MC NO. 7716 OF 2022** **==> picture [19 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** down in the said decision is that it is not impermissible to quash the FIR _qua_ some of the accused alone, depending on the facts and circumstances of each case. This Court in _**Sajeev & Another v. State of Kerala and Another**_ (2022 (3) KHC 69), has held that it is permissible to quash the proceedings against some of the accused alone on the ground of settlement depending on the facts and circumstances of each case. In these circumstances, I hold that it is permissible in law to quash the FIR or Final Report only against one or some of the accused on the ground of settlement, depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case invoking S.482 of Cr.P.C. 9. The learned counsel for the 3[rd] respondent submitted that as the dispute between the petitioners/accused Nos.2 and 3 and the 3[rd] respondent is amicably settled and she has no objection whatsoever if the final report is quashed only against the petitioner. The dispute in the above case ## **CRL.MC NO. 7716 OF 2022** **==> picture [18 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** is purely personal in nature. No public interest or harmony will be adversely affected by quashing the proceedings pursuant to Annexure-A2 as against the petitioners/accused Nos.2 and 3. The offences in question do not fall within the category of offences prohibited for compounding in terms of the pronouncement of the Apex Court in _**Gian Singh**_ (supra), _**Narinder Singh**_ (supra) and _**Laxmi Narayan**_ (supra). For the reasons stated above, I am of the view that no purpose will be served in proceeding with the matter further. Accordingly, the Crl.M.C. is allowed. All further proceedings pursuant to Annexure-A2 Final Report in C.C.No.558 of 2013 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Nilambur as against the petitioners/accused Nos.2 & 3 alone hereby stand quashed. Sd/- **DR.KAUSER EDAPPAGATH, JUDGE** AS **CRL.MC NO. 7716 OF 2022** ..8.. ## **APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 7716/2022** **PETITIONERS' ANNEXURES: ANNEXURE A1 TRUE COPY OF FIR DTD. 20.04.2013 IN CR. NO.119 OF 2013 OF EDAKKARA POLICE STATION ALONG WITH CMP NO. 2814 OF 2013 ANNEXURE A2 TRUE COPY OF FINAL REPORT NO.253 OF 2013 DTD. 24.06.2013 IN CR. NO.119 OF 2013 OF EDAKKARA POLICE STATION IN MALAPPURAM DISTRICT FILED BY 2ND RESPONDENT ANNEXURE A3 NOTARIZED AFFIDAVIT DTD. 18.07.2022 SWORN IN BY 3RD RESPONDENT ANNEXURE A4 CERTIFIED COPY OF MEMORANDUM OF EVIDENCE IN CR. NO.119 OF 2013 OF EDAKKARA POLICE STATION**