IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS TUESDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF OCTOBER 2024 / 30TH ASWINA, 1946 CRL.MC NO. 8105 OF 2024 CRIME NO.15/2021 OF Perinthalmanna Police Station, Malappuram AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN ST NO.226 OF 2022 OF GRAMA NYAYALAYA, PERINTALMANNA.
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
SAIDALAVI AGED 51 YEARS S/O.MUHAMMEDKUTTY, RESIDING AT MANNENGAL HOUSE, CHEMMALASSERY P.O., CHEMMALA, PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM, PIN - 679323 BY ADV SURAJ.S RESPONDENTS/STATE & COMPLAINANT:
1 THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, COCHIN, PIN - 682031
2 SHYJA.M AGED 38 YEARS W/O.ASHOK KUMAR, RESIDING AT VELLILAMPARMABIL HOUSE, THOOTHA, PARAL, MALAPPURAM DT, PIN - 670671 BY ADVS.
SRI. P.ABDUL MAJEED SRI. NOUSHAD K. A. (PP)
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
22.10.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J ---------------------------------------------
Crl.M.C.No.8105 of 2024 ----------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 22nd day of October, 2024
O R D E R
Petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to quash all proceedings against him.
2. Petitioner is the accused in S.T No.226/2022 on the files of the Grama Nyayalaya, Perinthalmanna, arises out of Crime No.15/2021 of Perinthalmanna Police Station, Malappuram, registered for the offences under Section 353 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Second respondent is the defacto complainant.
3. According to the prosecution, the accused had on
05.01.2021, come to the ofÏce of the Grama Panchayath and obstructed and prevented the Extension OfÏcer from discharging her duty as a public servant, and thereby committed the offences alleged.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent, apart from the learned Public Prosecutor.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the matter has been settled and hence the proceedings against the petitioner ought to be quashed. It was also submitted that, considering the nature of offences alleged, no purpose would be served by continuing the proceedings.
6. In Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Another [(2012) 10 SCC 303], the Apex Court has held that in appropriate cases, the High Court can take note of the amicable resolution of disputes between the victim and the wrongdoer to put an end to the criminal proceedings. This view was reiterated in Narinder Singh and Others v. State of Punjab and Another [(2014) 6 SCC 466] and Yogendra Yadav and Others v. State of Jharkhand and Another [(2014) 9 SCC 653].
7. I have perused Annexure D afÏdavit filed by the second respondent. The learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that upon verification, it is understood that the afÏdavit is genuine, and the defacto complainant stands by the contents thereof. I am satisfied that the matter has been settled and no public interest is involved in this case. There is no impediment for granting the prayer for quashing. The continuance of the proceedings will only be an exercise in futility.
8. Accordingly, all proceedings against the petitioner in S.T No.226/2022 on the files of the Grama Nyayalaya, Perinthalmanna, are quashed.
This Criminal Miscellaneous Case is allowed as above.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.