Kerala High Court
Binoop vs State Of Kerala Represented By ... on 22 December, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
THURSDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF DECEMBER 2022 / 1ST POUSHA, 1944
CRL.MC NO. 9212 OF 2022
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC 447/2020 OF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS ,NADAPURAM
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
BINOOP
AGED 27 YEARS, S/O BABU,
PARAYULLAPARAMBATH HOUSE,
ADUKKATH, MOYILOTHARA P.O,
MARUTHOMKARA, THOTTILPALAM,
KOZHIKODE RURAL, PIN - 673513
BY ADV M.R.SASITH
RESPONDENT/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031
2 THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE
THOTTIPALAM POLICE STATION
KOZHIKODE RURAL, PIN - 673513
3 ANANYA
AGED 27 YEARS, D/O BALAN,
MANGALATH HOUSE
MARUTHONKARA P.O, KAVILUMPARA,
VADAKKARA TALUK,
KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN - 673513
SRI P G MANU-SR PP
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 22.12.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:
CRL.MC NO. 9212 of 2022
-:2:-
ORDER
Dated this the 22nd day of December, 2022
This Crl.M.C. has been preferred to quash Annexure-A2 Final
Report in C.C.No.447 of 2020 on the file of the Judicial First Class
Magistrate Court, Nadapuram on the ground of settlement
between the parties.
2. The petitioner is the accused. The 3rd respondent is the
de facto complainant.
3. The offences alleged against the petitioner are
punishable under Sections 506 and 509 of Indian Penal Code and
Section 120(o) of Kerala Police Act, 2011.
4. An affidavit sworn in by the 3rd respondent is also
produced.
5. I have heard Sri.M.R.Sasith, the learned counsel for the
petitioner and Sri.P.G.Manu, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor.
6. The averments in the petition as well as the affidavit
sworn in by the 3rd respondent 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 criminal
CRL.MC NO. 9212 of 2022
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
nature. No public interest or harmony will be adversely affected
by quashing the proceedings pursuant to Annexure-A2. The
CRL.MC NO. 9212 of 2022
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-A2 Final Report in
C.C.No.447 of 2020 on the file of the Judicial First Class
Magistrate Court, Nadapuram hereby stands quashed.
Sd/-
DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
JUDGE
APA
CRL.MC NO. 9212 of 2022
APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 9212/2022
PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES
Annexure A1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE FIR REGISTERED BY THE
2ND RESPONDENT
Annexure A2 TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT FILED BEFORE
JUDICIAL FIRST-CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT
NADAPURAM AS CC 447/2020
Annexure A3 THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT
