IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
THURSDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF JULY 2022 / 16TH ASHADHA, 1944
CRL.MC NO. 4215 OF 2022
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC 893/2020 OF JUDICIAL FIRST
CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, TRIPUNITHURA
CRIME NO. 20/2020 OF UDAYAMPEROOR POLICE STATION
PETITIONERS/ACCUSED:
1 MANISH N MENON
AGED 28 YEARS
REVATHY HOUSE, CHITHRALAYAMCOUMPOUND,
VETTIKAPPILLY RES. UDAYAMPEROOR
PIN - 682307
2 NANDAKUMAR K MENON
AGED 64 YEARS
REVATHY HOUSE, CHITHRALAYAMCOUMPOUND,
VETTIKAPPILLY RES. UDAYAMPEROOR
PIN - 682307
3 INDIRA N MENON
AGED 58 YEARS
REVATHY HOUSE, CHITHRALAYAMCOUMPOUND,
VETTIKAPPILLY RES. UDAYAMPEROOR.
PIN - 682307
BY ADVS.
P.A.MOHAMMED ASLAM
MOHAMMED MUBARAK A.I.
SARATH SASI
E.B.THAJUDDEEN
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, PIN - 682031
2 DIVYA M S
AGED 29 YEARS
MUNDETH PARAMBU, THAIKKATTUKARA P.O, AMBATTUKAVU,
ALUVA- 683106 , PIN - 683106
BY ADV ASHI SUKUMARAN
SRI P G MANU-SR PP
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
07.07.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.M.C.No.4215 of 2022
..2..
ORDER
This Crl.M.C. has been preferred to quash Annexure-1 Final Report in C.C. No. 893/2020 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Thripunithura on the ground of settlement between the parties.
2. The petitioners are the accused Nos. 1 to 3. The respondent No. 2 is the de facto complainant.
3. The offence alleged against the petitioners is punishable under Section 498A read with 34 of the IPC.
4. The respondent No. 2 entered appearance through counsel. An affidavit sworn in by her is also produced.
5. I have heard Sri. Mohammed Aslam, the learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri. Ashi Sukumaran, the learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 and Sri. P.G. Manu, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor.
6. The averments in the petition as well as the affidavit Crl.M.C.No.4215 of 2022 ..3..
sworn in by the respondent No.2 would show that the entire dispute between the parties has been amicably settled and the de facto complainant has decided not to proceed with the criminal proceedings further. The learned Prosecutor, on instruction, submits that the matter was enquired into through the investigating officer and a statement of the de facto complainant was also recorded wherein she reported that the matter 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 in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan and Others [(2019) 5 SCC 688] has held that the High Court by 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 the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of process of any Court.
Crl.M.C.No.4215 of 2022 ..4..
8. The dispute in the above case is purely personal in nature. No public interest or harmony will be adversely affected by quashing the proceedings pursuant to Annexure-1. The offence in question does 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 any further. Accordingly, the Crl.M.C. is allowed. Annexure-1 Final Report in C.C. No. 893/2020 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Thripunithura hereby stands quashed.
Sd/-
DR.KAUSER EDAPPAGATH, JUDGE RMV Crl.M.C.No.4215 of 2022 ..5..
APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 4215/2022 PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure1 FINAL REPORT ALONG WITH THE FIR Annexure2 THE AFFIDAVIT OF CW1/ 2ND RESPONDENT