CRL.MC NO. 1571 OF 2020 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
TUESDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 24TH JYAISHTA, 1944
CRL.MC NO. 1571 OF 2020
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC 936/2018 OF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -II, ERNAKULAM
PETITIONER/S:
MUHAMMED ARSHAD
AGED 22 YEARS
S/O. MUHAMMED IRSHAD, 9 DARUL KARAM (H), ST. MARYS
COMPOUND ARAMANPPADI, CHANGANASSERY 686 101.
BY ADV ELDHO MATHEW
RESPONDENT/S:
1 THE STATE OF KERALA
REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, ERNAKULAM 682 031.
2 ANANDA R DEV
D/O. T.P. RANADEV, ANANADHATHIL HOUSE, ERITHIPALAM
SADANAM ROAD, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT 673 006.
BY ADV A.MUHAMMED MUSTHAFA
OTHER PRESENT:
SMT T V NEEMA -SR PP
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 14.06.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:
CRL.MC NO. 1571 OF 2020 2
O R D E R
This Crl.M.C. has been preferred to quash all further proceedings in C.C.No.936/2018 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Ernakulam on the ground of settlement between the parties.
2. The petitioner is the accused. The 2nd respondent is the de facto complainant.
3. The offences alleged against the petitioner are punishable under Sections 341, 294(b), 506(1) and 509 of IPC and Section 4 of the Kerala Prohibition of Ragging Act.
4. The respondent No.2 entered appearance through counsel. An affidavit sworn in by her is also produced.
5. I have heard Sri.Eldho Mathew, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri.A.Muhammed Musthafa, the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 and Smt.T.V.Neema, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor.
CRL.MC NO. 1571 OF 2020 3
6. The averments in the petition as well as the affidavit 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 CRL.MC NO. 1571 OF 2020 4 and circumstances of the case or to ensure the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of process of any Court.
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 in C.C.No.936/2018. 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 any further. Accordingly, the Crl.M.C. is allowed. All further proceedings in C.C.No.936/2018 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Ernakulam hereby stands quashed.
Sd/-
DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH JUDGE ab CRL.MC NO. 1571 OF 2020 5 APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 1571/2020 PETITIONER ANNEXURES ANNEXURE 1 THE ORIGINAL COPY OF THE CHARGE SHEET NO. 271/2018 OF ERNAKULAM CENTRAL POLICE STATION, SUBMITTED BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT II ERNAKULAM DATED 04/05/2018.
ANNEXURE 2 THE TRUE AFFIDAVIT OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 20/11/2019.
ANNEXURE 3 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR DATED 1.11.2017 IN CRIME NUMBER 3143/2017 AT ERNAKULAM CENTRAL POLICE STATION.
RESPONDENTS ANNEXURES: NIL