Kerala High Court
Gracy Vincent vs State Of Kerala on 7 April, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
THURSDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF APRIL 2022 / 17TH CHAITHRA, 1944
CRL.MC NO. 1516 OF 2020
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC 1405/2017 OF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS - IX, ERNAKULAM (TEMPORARY)
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
GRACY VINCENT
AGED 61 YEARS, W/O.VINCENT, KALATHI PARAMBIL
HOUSE, SOUTH JANATHA ROAD, PALARIVATTOM.
BY ADV T.KABIL CHANDRAN
RESPONDENT/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT & STATE:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
PALARIVATTOM POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM, BY
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
PIN-682 031.
2 GAYATHRI ROBIN
AGED 34 YEARS, W/O.ROBIN BLOSSOM, KALATHI
PARAMBIL HOUSE, SOUTH JANATHA ROAD,
PALARIVATTOM.
BY ADV LENIN P. SUKUMARAN
SRI M P PRASANTH-PP
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 07.04.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED
THE FOLLOWING:
CrlM.C. No.1516/2020
..2..
ORDER
Dated this the 07th day of April, 2022
This Crl.M.C. has been preferred to quash Annexure-A2
Final Report in C.C. No.1405/2017 on the files of the Judicial
First Class Magistrate Court-IX, Ernakulam on the ground of
settlement between the parties.
2. The petitioner is the accused. The 2 nd respondent is
the de facto complainant.
3. The offence alleged against the petitioner are under
Sections 403 and 406 of the IPC.
4. The 2nd respondent entered appearance through
counsel. An affidavit sworn in by her is also produced.
5. I have heard Sri.Kabil Chandran.T, the learned
counsel for the petitioner, Sri.Lenil P.Sugumaran, the learned
counsel for the 2nd respondent and Sri.M.P.Prasanth, the
learned Public Prosecutor.
6. The averments in the petition as well as the
affidavit sworn in by the 2 nd respondent would show that the
entire dispute between the parties has been amicably settled
CrlM.C. No.1516/2020
..3..
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 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
CrlM.C. No.1516/2020
..4..
affected by quashing the proceedings pursuant to Annexure-
A2. 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 will be served in proceeding with the matter further.
Accordingly, the Crl.M.C. is allowed. Annexure-A2 Final Report
in C.C. No.1405/2017 on the files of the Judicial First Class
Magistrate Court-IX, Ernakulam stands hereby quashed.
Sd/-
DR.KAUSER EDAPPAGATH,
JUDGE
ded/07.04.2022
CrlM.C. No.1516/2020
..5..
APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 1516/2020
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
ANNEXURE A1 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME
NO.1246/2017 OF PALARIVATTOM POLICE
STATION.
ANNEXURE A2 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN
CC NO.1405/2017 PENDING ON THE FILES
OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE
COURT IX, ERNAKULAM.
ANNEXURE A3 AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS : NIL.
//TRUE COPY//
P.A. TO JUDGE
