Hamsathali v. State Of Kerala
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.UBAID WEDNESDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF AUGUST 2015/14TH SRAVANA, 1937 Crl.MC.No. 5018 of 2015 ------------------------ CRIME NO. 812/2015 OF OTTAPALAM POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD PETITIONERS/ACCUSED:
-------------------
1. HAMSATHALI S/O. ABDUL AZEEZ, ANJILAKKADAVATH HOUSE, PEROOR P.O, PATHIRIPALA, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.
2. ABDUL AZEEZ A.A S/O. ALI MUHAMMED, ANJILAKKADAVATH HOUSE, PEROOR P.O. PATHIRIPALA, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.
3. KADEEJA, W/O. ABDUL AZEEZ, ANJILAKKADAVATH HOUSE, PEROOR P.O. PATHIRIPALA, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.
4. SULAIKHA.A, W/O. ABDUL RASHEED, D/O. ABDUL AZEEZ, ANJILAKKADAVATH HOUSE, PEROOR P.O., PATHIRIPALA, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.
5. NOOR MUHAMMED.A, S/O. ABDUL AZEEZ, ANJILAKKADAVATH HOUSE, PEROOR P.O. PATHIRIPALA, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SRI.P.JAYARAM RESPONDENTS:
-------------
1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
2. RAHISHA, W/O. HAMSATHALI, ANJILAKKADAVATH HOUSE, PEROOR P.O. PATHIRIPALA, PALAKKAD DISTRICT - 679 302.
R2 BY ADV. SRI.A.HAROON RASHEED R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.V.H.JASMINE THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05-08-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.MC.No. 5018 of 2015 ------------------------ APPENDIX PETITIONERS' ANNEXURES:
------------------------ A1 - COPY OF THE FIRST INFORMATION REPORT WITH FIRST INFORMATION STATEMENT IN CRIME NO. 812/2015, OTTAPALAM POLICE STATION. A2 - AFFIDAVIT DT. 01.8.2015 SWORN TO AND EXECUTED BY THE DEPONENT/2ND RESPONDENT.
RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES:
----------------------- NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE ab
P.UBAID, J.
--------------------------------------- Crl.M.C No.5018 of 2015 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 5th day of August, 2015
O R D E R
The petitioners seek orders quashing the F.I.R and further proceedings in Crime No.812/2015 of the Ottapalam Police Station, registered under Sections 323, 498(A) and 506(1) of the Indian Penal Code on the complaint of one Rahisha. Orders are sought on the ground of amicable settlement of the whole dispute between the accused and the de facto complainant out of court. The de facto complainant Rahisha is the 2nd respondent in this proceeding brought under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The victim's affidavit shows that she has reunited with the husband, and that they are leading a happy matrimony now with a son born in the wedlock. In such a situation, continuance of the prosecution will cause problems in their matrimony.
2.
In so many decisions, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that even in cases involving non-compoundable offences, the High Court can quash the prosecution; be it at the crime stage or at the trial stage or even at the appellate or
Crl.M.C No.5018 of 2015 revisional stage; if the parties have really settled the whole dispute, or if continuance of the prosecution will not serve any purpose. Here, I find a real case of settlement between the parties, and I also find that continuance of prosecution in such a situation will not serve any purpose other than wasting the precious time of the court, when the case ultimately comes before the court.
In the result, this petition is allowed. The F.I.R and further proceedings in Crime No.812/2015 of the Ottapalam Police Station will stand quashed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
P.UBAID JUDGE ab