Arun. C vs Anjalidev
2022 Latest Caselaw 1360 Ker

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                          PRESENT
        THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
  TUESDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022 / 12TH MAGHA, 1943
                  CRL.MC NO. 6556 OF 2021
    CC 347/2019 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT,
                          PARAVUR
PETITIONERS/ACCUSED:

    1    ARUN. C
         AGED 27 YEARS
         S/O. CHANDRABABU, VALSA BHAVAN, MNRA A-4, KUNNATHU
         VADAKE MADOM, KUDAPPANAKUNNU VILLAGE,
         KUDAPPANAKUNNU P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695043.

    2    CHANDRABABU,
         AGED 57 YEARS
         VALSA BHAVAN, MNRA A-4, KUNNATHU VADAKE MADOM,
         KUDAPPANAKUNNU VILLAGE, KUDAPPANAKUNNU P.O.,
         THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695043.

    3    VALSA,
         AGED 50 YEARS
         W/O. CHANDRABABU, VALSA BHAVAN, MNRA A-4, KUNNATHU
         VADAKE MADOM, KUDAPPANAKUNNU VILLAGE,
         KUDAPPANAKUNNU P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695043.

    4    ARCHANA VALSA,
         AGED 27 YEARS
         D/O. CHANDRABABU, VALSA BHAVAN, MNRA A-4, KUNNATHU
         VADAKE MADOM, KUDAPPANAKUNNU VILLAGE,
         KUDAPPANAKUNNU P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695043.
 Crl.M.C.No.6556/2021

                                 -:2:-

     5     ANJANA VALSA,
           AGED 27 YEARS
           D/O. CHANDRABABU, VALSA BHAVAN, MNRA A-4, KUNNATHU
           VADAKE MADOM, KUDAPPANAKUNNU VILLAGE,
           KUDAPPANAKUNNU P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695043.

           BY ADV BIJU MATHEW



RESPONDENT/STATE & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:

     1     ANJALIDEV
           AGED 23 YEARS
           D/O. SUDEVAN, RESIDING AT ANJALI VIHAR,
           KARIMPALOOR, PUTHENKULAM PO, KOLLAM-691001.

     2     STATE OF KERALA
           REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF
           KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031.

           BY ADV M.S.AMAL DHARSAN

           SRI. M.P. PRASANTH, PP




      THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON   01.02.2022,   THE   COURT    ON     THE   SAME   DAY   PASSED   THE
FOLLOWING:
 Crl.M.C.No.6556/2021

                                -:3:-

                               ORDER

Dated this the 1st day of February, 2022

This Crl.M.C. has been preferred to quash Annexure I

complaint in C.C.No.347/2019 on the files of the Judicial First

Class Magistrate Court (Temporary) Paravur, Kollam and all

further proceedings therein on the ground of settlement between

the parties.

2. The petitioners are the accused Nos. 1 to 5. The 1 st

respondent is the defacto complainant.

3. The offence alleged against the petitioners are under

Section 7 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

4. The respondent No.1 entered appearance through

counsel. An affidavit sworn in by her is also produced.

5. I have heard Sri. Biju Mathew, the learned counsel for

the petitioners, Sri. M.S. Amal Dharsan, the learned counsel for

the respondent No.1 and Sri.M.P. Prasanth, the learned Public

Prosecutor.

6. The averments in the petition as well as the affidavit Crl.M.C.No.6556/2021

sworn in by the respondent No.1 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.

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 I. The

offence in question do not fall within the category of offences Crl.M.C.No.6556/2021

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 I complaint in

C.C.No.347/2019 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate

Court (Temporary) Paravur, Kollam and all further proceedings

therein stands hereby quashed.

Sd/-

DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH JUDGE kp True copy P.A. To Judge Crl.M.C.No.6556/2021

APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 6556/2021

PETITIONER ANNEXURES

Annexure I TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT IN CC NO.347/2019 ON THE FILES OF HON'BLE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT (TEMPORARY) PARAVUR, KOLLAM.

Annexure II TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 17.12.2020 IN OP(CRL.) NO.166 OF 2020.

Annexure III TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 25.11.2021 IN I.A.NO.1/2021 IN OP(CRL.) NO.166 OF 2020.

Annexure IV TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT OF THE DEFACTO COMPLAINANT DATED 20.12.2021.