Shahsad vs Nafeeda Sherin

Gopinath P, J

The petitioners are the accused in Crime No.500/2021 of Tirurangadi Police Station. The gist of the allegation is that the petitioners trespassed in

the house of the defacto complainant (1st respondent) and assaulted the defacto cmpalinant and thereby committed the offences under Sections 143,

147, 148, 448, 354, 323, 427, 294 (b) read with Section 149 of IPC. With reference to Annexure-III affidavit executed by the 1st respondent it is

submitted that all disputes between the petitioners and the 1st respondent have been amicably settled.

I have heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, the 1st respondent and the learned Public Prosecutor for the State of Kerala.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab [2012 (10) SCC 303] and Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai

Karmur and others vs. State of Gujarat and another [(2017) 9 SCC 641]h as held that considering the facts and circumstances of a case, where

the High Court is satisfied that an amicable settlement has been arrived between the parties and the offence is not serious in nature involving mental

depravity etc., criminal proceedings may be quashed, in order to secure the ends of justice.

Considering the facts of the case and the nature of the offence and keeping in mind the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the decisions

referred to above, I am of the opinion that this is a fit case where the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure can be invoked to quash the proceedings. Apparently, no public interest is involved. The chances of a successful prosecution are also

remote. It will be a wastage of judicial time to continue with the prosecution against the petitioners. In the aforesaid circumstances all further

proceedings in Crime No.500/2021 of Tirurangadi Police Station, Malappuram District will stand quashed as against the petitioners.