K.K.Sudheer vs K.T.Beena Madhusoodhanan
2021 Latest Caselaw 12021 Ker

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                             PRESENT

          THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS

   FRIDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF APRIL 2021 / 26TH CHAITHRA, 1943

                    Crl.MC.No.2228 OF 2021(G)

  AGAINST THE ORDER IN LPC 191/2008 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF
                    FIRST CLASS -I, KANNUR

    CRIME NO.369/2003 OF KANNUR TOWN POLICE STATION, KANNUR


PETITIONER/ ACCUSED NO.2 :

             K.K.SUDHEER,
             AGED 67 YEARS,
             S/O. KUNHIKRISHNAN, KANHIRODE AMSOM,
             THATTIYODE, KORANPEEDIKA P.O.
             KOODALI, KANNUR - 670 592.

             BY ADV. SRI.K.RAJESH SUKUMARAN

RESPONDENTS/ DE FACTO COMPLAINANT & STATE :

      1      K.T.BEENA MADHUSOODHANAN,
             AGED 60 YEARS,
             W/O. LATE MADHUSOODHANAN, DHANYA,
             OPP. KOYILI HOSPITAL ROAD,
             P.O PALLIKUNNU,
             KANNUR - 670 004.

      2      STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
             KANNUR TOWN POLICE STATION,
             KANNUR - 670 001.

      3      STATE OF KERALA,
             REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
             HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
             ERNAKULAM - 682 031.

             R1 BY ADV. R.SREEHARI
             R2 & R3 BY SR.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.C.M.KAMMAPPU


     THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
16.04.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
 Crl.MC.No.2228 OF 2021(G)

                                     2




                                 ORDER

Dated this the 16th day of April, 2021

The petitioner is the 2nd accused in LPC.No.191/2008 on the

files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court - I, Kannur for having

allegedly committed the offences punishable under Sections 420 r/w.

34 of the IPC.

2. The de facto complainant is the first respondent herein,

who has appeared through Counsel Adv.R.Sreehari and has filed an

affidavit as Annexure A5 & stating that the matter has been amicably

settled and that she has no existing grievance against the petitioner.

The offences alleged are purely personal in nature and no serious

prejudice will be caused to the public if the settlement is recognised.

Further, possibility of the case ending in conviction is also very remote,

if not impossible due to the said settlement. Recognising the said

settlement augurs better in the interests of all.

3. Reliance can be placed on the decisions in Gian Singh

v. State of Punjab [2012 (4) KLT 108], Narinder Singh and Others

v. State of Punjab and Another [(2014) 6 SCC 466)] and

Yogendra Yadav and Others v. State of Jharkhand [(2014) 9 SCC

653] for recognizing the settlement entered into by the parties. Crl.MC.No.2228 OF 2021(G)

4. In view of the settlement arrived at between the

petitioner and the first respondent, the petitioner is entitled to get the

proceedings quashed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. It is also

pertinent to note that the petitioner does not have any criminal

antecedents though the same may have no bearing as such in this

case.

In the result, this Crl.M.C.is allowed and the entire

proceedings against the petitioner in LPC.No.191/2008 on the files of

the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court - I, Kannur shall stand

quashed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.

Sd/-

BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, JUDGE

RKM Crl.MC.No.2228 OF 2021(G)

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

ANNEXURE A1 COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 24.05.2003 GIVEN BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO DYSP.

ANNEXURE A2 COPY OF THE FIRST INFORMATION REPORT IN CRIME NO. 369/2003 OF KANNUR TOWN POLICE STATION.

ANNEXURE A3 COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO.

369/2003 OF KANNUR TOWN POLICE STATION, FIELD BEFORE THE J.F.C.M. COURT NO. 1, KANNUR.

ANNEXURE A4 COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN CC 54/2004 DATED 04.07.2007 ON THE FILE OF THE J.F.C.M. COURT NO. 1 KANNUR.

ANNEXURE A5 SWORN AFFIDAVIT OF THE 1T RESPONDENT DATED 26.03.2021.