Kerala High Court
S. Sajeev vs State Of Kerala on 11 January, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
TUESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF JANUARY 2022 / 21ST POUSHA, 1943
CRL.MC NO. 5105 OF 2021
CRIME NO.811/2019 OF Palode Police Station,
Thiruvananthapuram
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC 3108/2020 OF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS (F.O) NEDUMANGAD
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
S. SAJEEV,AGED 39 YEARS
S/O. SHIVADASAN, USHA BHAVAN, PERINGAMMALA
VILLAGE, MADATHARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-691 521.
BY ADVS.G.RANJU MOHAN
M.SANTHI (K/868/2011)
RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
2 XXXXX
X
BY ADV SAREENA.S FOR R2
SMT. T.V. NEEMA SR.PP FOR R1
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 11.01.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:
Crl.M.C.No.5105/2021
-:2:-
ORDER
Dated this the 11th day of January, 2022
This Crl.M.C. has been preferred to quash Annexure A1
Final Report in Crime No. 811/2019 of Palode Police Station on
the ground of settlement between the parties.
2. The petitioner is the accused. The 2nd respondent is
the defacto complainant.
3. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under
Sections 354, 354A(l), 354D(l) of IPC.
4. The respondent No.2 entered appearance through
counsel. An affidavit sworn in by her is also produced.
5. I have heard Sri. Ranju Mohan G, the learned counsel
for the petitioner, Adv. Sareena S, the learned counsel for the
respondent No.2 and Smt. T.V. Neema, the learned Public
Prosecutor.
6. The averments in the petition as well as the affidavit
sworn in by the respondent No.2 would show that the entire
dispute between the parties has been amicably settled and the
Crl.M.C.No.5105/2021
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 affected
by quashing the proceedings pursuant to Annexure A1. The
Crl.M.C.No.5105/2021
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 A1 Final Report in
Crime No. 811/2019 of Palode Police Station stands hereby
quashed.
Sd/-
DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
JUDGE
kp True copy
P.A. To Judge
Crl.M.C.No.5105/2021
APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 5105/2021
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A1 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN
CRIME NO. 811/2019 OF PALODE POLICE
STATION.
Annexure A2 AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
