Kerala High Court
Aloshys vs State Of Kerala on 5 April, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
TUESDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF APRIL 2022 / 15TH CHAITHRA, 1944
CRL.MC NO. 5882 OF 2018
CRIME NO.1575/2015 OF Mannuthy Police Station, Thrissur
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC 2827/2015 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE
OF FIRST CLASS -III,THRISSUR
PETITIONERS/ACCUSED:
1 ALOSHYS
AGED 23 YEARS
S/O VINCENT, KALLOOKARAN HOUSE, NEAR KURISU PALLI,
MUKKATTUKARA , VETTISERY P.O, THRISSUR DISTRICT
2 VINCENT
AGED 52 YEARS
S.O. DEVASSY, KALLOOKARAN HOUSE,
NEAR KURISU PALLI,
MUKKATTUKARA,
VETTISSERY P.O.,
THRISSUR DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.SANTHOSH P.PODUVAL
R. RAJITHA
S.R. NEETHU RAJ
VINAYA V.NAIR
R.N. SANDEEP
RESPONDENTS/STATE AND DEFACTO COMPLAINANT & VICTIMS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF
KERALA ERNAKULAM- 682031.
2 DIVYA
W/O. S.S.KARTHA,
SREELAKSHMI NIVAS,
MUKKATTUKARA,
NETTISSERY VILLAGE,
MANNUTHY,THRISSUR DISTRICT.680651
R1 BY SRI. M.P.PRASANTH, PP
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
05.04.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
CRL.MC NO. 5882 OF 2018
-2-
ORDER
This Crl.M.C. has been filed to quash Annexure B Final Report in
Crime No.1575/2015 of Mannuthy Police Station. After filing the
Crl.M.C., the matter has been amicably settled between the parties.
2. The petitioners are the accused 1 and 2. The 2nd
respondent is the de facto complainant.
3. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under
Sections 294(b) and 506(i) r/w Section 34 of IPC.
4. The respondent No.2 entered appearance through counsel.
An affidavit sworn in by her is also produced.
5. I have heard Sri. Santhosh P.Poduval, the learned counsel
for the petitioners, and Sri. M.P.Prasanth, the learned Public
Prosecutor.
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 crime 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
CRL.MC NO. 5882 OF 2018
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 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 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 pursuant to Annexure B Final Report. 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
CRL.MC NO. 5882 OF 2018
will be served in proceeding with the matter further. Accordingly, the
Crl.M.C. is allowed. Annexure B Final Report in Crime No.1575/2015
of Mannuthy Police Station, stands hereby quashed.
Sd/-
DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
JUDGE
uu
05.04.2022
CRL.MC NO. 5882 OF 2018
APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 5882/2018
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
ANNEXURE A CERTIFIED COPY OF FIR IN CRIME NO. 1575/
OF MANNUTHY POLICE STATION.
ANNEXURE B TRUE COPY OF FINAL REPORT IN CRIME
NO.1575/15 OF MANUTHY POLICE STATION.M
