Kerala High Court
Manuraj 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. 1845 OF 2022
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC 1347/2021 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE
OF FIRST CLASS -II,ATTINGAL
PETITIONER:
MANURAJ
AGED 29 YEARS
UTHRADAM VEEDU, KAILATHUKONAM DESOM,
KURAKKADA P.O., KIZHUVALLAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN -
695104
BY ADV LATHEESH SEBASTIAN
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM ., PIN - 682031
2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER
MANGALAPURAM POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
DISTRICT, PIN - 695104
3 AJALYA M.A
AGED 22 YEARS
ABHIJITH BHAVAN, PANDARAKKONAM, AGED 22 YEARS,
ANAD P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695541, PIN - 695541
R3 BY REMYA RAVINDRAN
SMT T V NEEMA -SR 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. 1845 OF 2022
-2-
ORDER
This Crl.M.C. has been preferred to quash Annexure A1 Final
Report in Crime No.897/2019 of Mangalapuram Police Station, on the
ground of settlement between the parties.
2. The petitioner is the accused. The 3rd respondent is the de
facto complainant.
3. The offence alleged against the petitioner is under Section
498A of IPC.
4. The respondent No.3 entered appearance through counsel.
An affidavit sworn in by her is also produced.
5. I have heard Sri. Latheesh Sebastian, the learned counsel
for the petitioner, Smt. Remya Ravindran the learned counsel for the
respondent No.3 and Smt. T.V.Neema, the learned Public Prosecutor.
6. The averments in the petition as well as the affidavit sworn
in by the respondent No.3 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. 1845 OF 2022
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 A1 Final Report. The offence in
question does not fall within the category of offence 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. 1845 OF 2022
will be served in proceeding with the matter further. Accordingly, the
Crl.M.C. is allowed. Annexure A1 Final Report in Crime No.897/2019,
of Mangalapuram Police Station stands hereby quashed.
Sd/-
DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
JUDGE
uu
05.04.2022
CRL.MC NO. 1845 OF 2022
APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 1845/2022
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure1 TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT OF THE 2ND
RESPONDENT IN CRIME NO.897/2019 OF
MANGALAPURAM POLICE STATION.
Annexure2 TRUE COPY OF THE MEDIATION SETTLEMENT
ARRIVED BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND THE
3RD RESPONDENT AT MEDIATION CENTRE,
ATTINGAL IN O.P. NO. 1437/2019.
Annexure3 AFFIDAVIT EXECUTED BY THE 3RD
RESPONDENT.
