Josy George vs State Of Kerala
2021 Latest Caselaw 19846 Ker

                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                   PRESENT

                   THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.R.ANITHA

         THURSDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 1ST ASWINA, 1943

                           CRL.MC NO. 1391 OF 2021

 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC 646/2017 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

                         CLASS -I,PERAMBRA, KOZHIKODE

PETITIONER/S:

            JOSY GEORGE
            AGED 39 YEARS
            S/O GEORGE JOSEPH,
            II-C CASTLE, TRINITY APARTMENT, NEAR LULU MALL, EDAPPALLY,
            ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-682024.
            BY ADV S.K.KRISHNAKUMAR


RESPONDENT/S:

     1      STATE OF KERALA
            REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
            ERNAKULAM, PIN-682031.
     2      ANN PRIYA, AGED 33 YEARS,
            D/O LATE ADV.K.A. DEVASSYA,
            10/250, CHAVARA RING ROAD ,
            MEDICAL COLLEGE P.O., KOZHIKODE, PIN-673008.
     3      SHEELA GEORGE
            AGED 61 YEARS
            W/O GEORGE,
            II-C CASTLE,
            TRINITY APARTMENT,
            NEAR LULU MALL,
            EDAPPALLY,
            ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-682024.
            BY ADVS.
            SRI.E.G.GORDEN
            SRI.BABU CHERUKARA


OTHER PRESENT:

            PP.C.SEENA



      THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23.09.2021,

THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 Crl.M.C.No.1391 OF 2021

                                       2



                                  ORDER

Petitioner and the 3rd respondent are accused Nos.1 and 2

in C.C.No.646/2017 on the file of the Judicial First Class

Magistrate Court-I, Perambra. This Crl.M.C. has been filed

seeking to quash the entire proceedings in C.C.No.646/2017

which arouse out of crime No.288/2017 of Perambra Police

Station.

2. The crime has been registered based upon Annexure

A-1 private complaint filed by the second respondent - defacto

complainant alleging commission of offence under Sections 406,

498-A, 323 r/w. 34 IPC. Annexure A-2 is the copy of FIR

registered in pursuance of the same. After investigation, Final

Report was filed and the case was taken on file as

C.C.No.646/2017. Copy of the Final Report is produced as

Annexure A-3.

3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner

that the whole issue with the 2nd respondent, who is none other

than his wife and the 3rd respondent - mother of the petitioner

has been amicably settled. The affidavit sworn in by the defacto

complainant has also been produced from the side of the Crl.M.C.No.1391 OF 2021

petitioner stating that she has no objection in quashing the

proceedings in C.C.No.646/2017 and allowing this Crl.M.C.

4. Adv. Sri. Babu Cherukara appeared on behalf of the

3rd respondent. The 3rd respondent filed counter affidavit, in

which she has categorically stated that she has no objection in

quashing all further proceedings in C.C.No.646/2017 and also

requested for the same.

5. The learned Public Prosecutor on instruction submitted

that that the disputes between the petitioner and the

2nd respondent - defacto complainant and the 3rd respondent have

been amicably settled and the defacto complainant is not

interested in prosecuting the case against the accused persons.

6. In Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Another

(2012 (10) SCC 303 : 2012 KHC 4530) a three Judge Bench

of the Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with Section 482 of

the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has held that criminal

cases having civil flavour and arising from criminal financial

merchantile, civil, partnership, matrimony relating to dowry or

family disputes where wrong is private or personal in nature can

be quashed in view of the settlement between the parties.

7. The affidavit sworn in by the defacto complainant Crl.M.C.No.1391 OF 2021

would reveal the settlement arrived at between the parties. She

also has no intention to prosecute further against the petitioner

and the 3rd respondent. No public interest is involved in this

matter and the issue is purely private in nature. So there is no

impediment in quashing the proceedings against the petitioner

and further continuance of the proceedings against the

petitioner and 3rd respondent will be an abuse of process of law.

Therefore, I am of the view that it is only just and proper to

quash Annexure A-3 and the entire proceedings in

C.C.No.646/2017 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate

Court-I, Perambra. It is ordered accordingly.

In the result, Crl.M.C. stands allowed.

Sd/-

                                                            M.R.ANITHA

shg                                                            JUDGE
 Crl.M.C.No.1391 OF 2021




                          APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 1391/2021


PETITIONER ANNEXURE

ANNEXURE-A1 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT, CMP NO.558 OF 2017 DATED 10.03.2017 FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE'S COURT-I, PERAMBRA.

ANNEXURE-A2 TRUE COPY F THE FIR IN CRIME NO.288 OF 2017 OF PERAMBRA POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE RURAL.

ANNEXURE-A3 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO.288 OF 2017 OF PERAMBRA POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE RURAL, SUBMITTED BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE'S COURT-I, PERAMBRA.