Kerala High Court
Samad vs State Of Kerala on 21 December, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
WEDNESDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF DECEMBER 2022/30TH AGRAHAYANA, 1944
CRL.MC NO. 8029 OF 2022
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC 453/2022 OF JUDL.
MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, KOTHAMANGALAM
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
SAMAD
AGED 31 YEARS, S/O SALIM,
IDAPPARA HOUSE, IRUMALAPPADY KARA,
ERAMALLOOR VILLAGE, KOTHAMANGALAM,
ERNAKULAM, KERALA, PIN - 686691
BY ADVS.
P.M.RAFEEK
V.A.NAVAS
U.NIDHIN
GIA MATHAI KANDATHIL
RESPONDENTS/ STATE & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031
2 SAINABA
AGED 24 YEARS, D/O HAMEED,
NANETHAN HOUSE, NELLIKKUZHI P.O,
NELLIKKUZHI KARA, ERAMALLOOR VILLAGE,
KOTHAMANGALAM, ERNAKULAM, KERALA., PIN - 686691
BY ADVS.
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
SARA JOHN
K.K.SIDHEEK(K/393/2001)
SRI SANGEETHA RAJ-PP
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 21.12.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:
CRL.MC NO. 8029 of 2022
-:2:-
ORDER
Dated this the 21st day of December, 2022
This Crl.M.C. has been preferred to quash Annexure-A1 Final
Report in C.C.No.453/2022 on the file of the Judicial First Class
Magistrate Court-I, Kothamangalam on the ground of settlement
between the parties.
2. The petitioner is the accused. The 2nd respondent is
the de facto complainant.
3. The offences alleged against the petitioner are
punishable under Sections 323, 324, 498-A and 506(ii) of Indian
Penal Code.
4. The 2nd respondent entered appearance through
counsel. An affidavit sworn in by her is also produced.
5. I have heard Sri.P.M.Rafeek, the learned counsel for
the petitioner, Smt.Sara John, the learned counsel for the
respondent No.2 and Sri.Sangeetha Raj, 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
CRL.MC NO. 8029 of 2022
dispute between the parties has been amicably settled and the
de facto complainant has decided not to proceed with the
criminal proceedings 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 by 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 the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of process of any
Court.
8. The dispute in the above case is purely personal in
CRL.MC NO. 8029 of 2022
nature. No public interest or harmony will be adversely affected
by quashing the proceedings pursuant to Annexure-A1. The
offences in question does 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 any further.
Accordingly, the Crl.M.C. is allowed. Annexure-A1 Final Report in
C.C.No.453/2022 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate
Court-I, Kothamangalam hereby stands quashed.
Sd/-
DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
JUDGE
APA
CRL.MC NO. 8029 of 2022
APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 8029/2022
PETITIONERS' ANNEXURES
Annexure 1 TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT/CHARGE IN C.C
NO. 453/2022
Annexure 2 TRUE COPY OF THE F.I.R NO.0777/2022.
Annexure 3 TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT EXECUTED BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT.
