Kerala High Court
Nabas K vs State Of Kerala on 22 April, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. BABU
FRIDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF APRIL 2022 / 2ND VAISAKHA, 1944
CRL.MC NO. 1382 OF 2022
SC 551/2021 OF ASSISTANT SESSIONS COURT, HOSDRUG
CRIME NO.314/2015 OF HOSDURG POLICE STATION
PETITIONER/6TH ACCUSED:
NABAS K,
AGED 29 YEARS,
S/O KHADER, THANDUMMAL (H),
NAHNIKKADAVU, KANJANGAD VILLAGE,
KASARAGOD., PIN - 671315
BY ADVS.
RAHUL SASI
NEETHU PREM
VIVEK.P.K
MANU K. MURALI
RESPONDENT/STATE & COMPLAINANTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031
2 LAKSHMI,
AGED 50 YEARS,
W/O KUNHAMBU, KAVUNKAL HOUSE,
OZHINJAVALAPPU P.O., KANHANAGAD,
KASARAGOD, PIN - 671315
3 KUNHAMBU,
AGED 57 YEARS,
KAVUNKAL HOUSE, OZHINJAVALAPPU P.O.,
KANHANAGAD, KASARAGOD, PIN - 671315
4 SUDHEESH K.K.,
AGED 29 YEARS,
S/O SHANMUGAN, KALICHANADUKKAM HOUSE,
KOVVAL STORE, KANHANAGAD VILLAGE,
KASARAGOD, PIN - 671315
5 RAMESHAN K.V.,
AGED 30 YEARS,
S/O KRISHNAN, KURUNTHUR HOUSE, KANHANGAD,
KASARAGOD, PIN - 671315
6 VIJESH T.V,
AGED 36 YEARS,
S/O RAGHAVAN T.V., THONATH VALAPPU,
KURUNTHUR, KANHANGAD,
KASARAGOD, PIN - 671315
Crl.M.C.No..1382 of 2022
2
7 SANEESH V.V.,
AGED 29 YEARS,
S/O UNNIKRISHNAN V.V.,
VALIYA VEETTIL (H),
KURUNTHUR, KANHANGAD, KASARAGOD, PIN - 671315
BY ADVS.
MIDU DEV PREM
SMT. MAYA M.N. (G.P)
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 22.04.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.M.C.No..1382 of 2022
3
K.BABU, J.
--------------------------------------
Crl.M.C.No.1382 of 2022
---------------------------------------
Dated this the 22nd day of April, 2022
ORDER
This Crl.M.C has been instituted to quash Annexure-A2 Final
Report in Crime No.314/2015 of Hosdurg Police Station, on the
ground that the parties have arrived at a settlement in respect of
the subject matter.
2. The petitioner is accused No.6.
3. The offences alleged against the petitioner are punishable
under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 323, 324, 308 and read with
Section.149 IPC.
4. Respondent Nos.2 to 7 entered appearance through
counsel. The affidavits sworn to by them have also been placed
before the Court.
5. Heard Sri. Rahul Sasi, the learned counsel for the
petitioner, Sri.Midu Dev Prem, the learned counsel for respondent
Nos. 2 to 7 and the learned Public Prosecutor.
6. I have perused the averments in the petition and the
affidavits sworn to by respondent Nos.2 to 7.
Crl.M.C.No..1382 of 2022
7. The learned Public Prosecutor, on instruction, submitted
that the matter was enquired into through the Investigating Officer,
who has taken statements of the victims, wherein they reported
that the disputes between the parties have been amicably settled.
The material placed before the Court shows that the entire dispute
between the parties has been amicably settled and the defacto
complainant has decided not to proceed further. The settlement
between the parties is found to be voluntary and fair. The
settlement or the compromise satisfies the conscience of the Court.
It is seen that the victims agreed to settle the matter with their free
will.
8. 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. Lakshmi Narayan and
Others [(2019) 5 SCC 688] the Apex Court held that the High Court
invoking Section 482 of Cr.P.C can quash criminal proceedings in
relation to non-compoundable offences where the parties have
settled the matter between themselves notwithstanding the bar
under Section 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
Crl.M.C.No..1382 of 2022
abuse of process of any Court.
9. In the instant case, the dispute is purely personal in nature.
There is nothing to show that public interest will be compromised
by quashing the proceedings pursuant to Annexure-A2. The
offences in question do not fall within the category of serious
offences or heinous offences.
10. The offences in the present case do not fall within the
category of offences prohibited for granting permission to
compromise in terms of the pronouncement of the Apex Court in
Gian Singh (supra) Narinder Singh (supra) Lakshmi Narayan
(supra).
11. This Court is of the view that no purpose will be served in
proceeding with the matter further.
Resultantly, the Crl.M.C is allowed. Annexure-A2 Final report
in Crime No. 314/2015 of Hosdurg Police Station as against the
petitioner stands hereby quashed.
Sd/-
K.BABU,
JUDGE
KAS
Crl.M.C.No..1382 of 2022
APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 1382/2022
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A1 THE CERTIFIED OF THE FIR AND FIS IN
CRIME NO. 314 OF 2015 OF HOSDURG POLICE
STATION
Annexure A2 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT
OF 2015 OF HOSDURG POLICE STATION.
Annexure3 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGMENT
DATED 30.11.2019 IN S.C. 694 OF 2016 BY
THE ASST. SESSIONS COURT, HOSDURG
Annexure A4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE DEATH CERTIFICATE
OF THE DE-FACTO COMPLAINANT
Annexure A5 THE ORIGINAL OF THE AFFIDAVIT SUBMITTED
BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 11.10.2021
Annexure A6 THE ORIGINAL OF THE AFFIDAVIT SUBMITTED
BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 11.10.2021
Annexure A7 THE ORIGINAL OF THE AFFIDAVIT SUBMITTED
BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 11.10.2021
Annexure A8 THE ORIGINAL OF THE AFFIDAVIT SUBMITTED
BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT DATED 11.10.2021
Annexure A9 THE ORIGINAL OF THE AFFIDAVIT SUBMITTED
BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT DATED 11.10.2021
Annexure A10 THE ORIGINAL OF THE AFFIDAVIT SUBMITTED
BY THE 7TH RESPONDENT DATED 11.10.2021
