Antony Thomas vs State Of Kerala
2021 Latest Caselaw 12143 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                               PRESENT

                 THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.HARIPAL

    TUESDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF APRIL 2021 / 30TH CHAITHRA, 1943

                      Crl.MC.No.1699 OF 2021(B)

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CP 2/2019 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF
                 FIRST CLASS - I, NORTH PARAVUR

   CRIME NO.1078/2018 OF VADAKKEKARA POLICE STATION , ERNAKULAM


PETITIONERS:

      1        ANTONY THOMAS
               AGED 31 YEARS
               S/O.THOMAS,PUTHIYAVEETTIL HOUSE,
               VADAKKUMPURAM,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

      2        JINU.K.S,
               AGED 26 YEARS
               S/O.SIMON,KIZHAKKEDATH HOUSE,
               CHENDAMANGALAM.P.O, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

               BY ADV. SRI.A.M.UMAR NASEEF

RESPONDENTS:

      1        STATE OF KERALA
               REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
               HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM-682031.

      2        SALIL KUMAR
               AGED 43 YEARS
               S/O.PAVITHRAN,MARAYIL KOLAM HOUSE,
               KARIMPADAM,CHENDAMANGALAM.P.O,
               PARAVUR TALUK,ERNAKULAM DIST.683512.

               R2 BY ADV. JOHN PAUL


               R1 BY SR.PUBLCI PROSECUTOR ADV.SRI. K.B.UDAYAKUMAR

     THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
20.04.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
 Crl.MC.No.1699 OF 2021

                                        2




                                   ORDER

Dated this the 20th day of April 2021

This application is filed under Section 482 of the

Cr.P.C. seeking to quash Annexure AI Final Report in Crime

No.1078/2018 of Vadakkekara Police Station in Ernakulam

District, in the light of the settlement arrived at between the parties.

The crime was registered on the basis of the first information

statement given by CW1 in Annexure A1 charge sheet, alleging

offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 324, 294(b), 308 r/w

Section 34 IPC. There are two accused in the charge sheet, who

are the petitioners. Now it is submitted that the dispute between

the parties have been amicably settled and defacto complainant, the

2nd respondent does not intend to proceed with the case.

Supporting the above version, the 2nd respondent has filed an

affidavit also.

2. I heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners

who are the accused as also the learned counsel appearing for the

2nd respondent.

Crl.MC.No.1699 OF 2021

3. The learned Public Prosecutor has no instruction in the

matter. As the 2nd respondent, defacto complainant has endorsed

the contention that the matter has been settled, there is no purpose

in prosecuting the matter further. It was purely a personal dispute

between the parties and no public interest is involved.

Notwithstanding the gravity of the offence, once the parties

themselves chose to settle the dispute and approach this Court for

quashment of the proceedings, High Court cannot refuse exercise

of interest jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.

Accordingly, Annexure A1 shall stand quashed and the

Crl.M.C. is allowed.

Sd/-

K.HARIPAL JUDGE SMF Crl.MC.No.1699 OF 2021

APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:

ANNEXURE A1 COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN C.P.NO.2/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE JFCM-1,N.PARAVUR

ANNEXURE A2 AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

//TRUE CPOPY// PA TO JUDGE