Kerala High Court
Sivan K.G vs State Of Kerala on 13 January, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
THURSDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF JANUARY 2022 / 23RD POUSHA, 1943
CRL.MC NO. 5393 OF 2021
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC 51/2016 OF JUDICAIL FIRST CLASS
MAGISTRATE COURT I, ERNAKULAM
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
SIVAN K.G.
AGED 57 YEARS
S/O.GOPALAN, KUTTUMPURATH HOUSE, PONNARIMANGALAM,
MULLAVUKADU, ERNAKULAM,
PIN-682504.
BY ADVS.
K.R.VINOD
K.S.SREEREKHA
ASWIN VENUGOPAL
MOHAMMED RAZALI K.A
ANOOP KUMAR V.
M.S.LETHA
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF
KERALA,KOCHI-682031.
2 MANGALA P.K.
AGED 46 YEARS
W/O.SIVAN, PULITHARANIKATHIL HOUSE, PONNARIMANGALAM,
MULLAVUKADU,
ERNAKULAM, PIN-682504.
BY ADV V.SRI NATH
SMT T V NEEMA-SR PP
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
13.01.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
2
Crl.M.C No. 5393 of 2021
ORDER
This Crl.M.C. has been preferred to quash Annexure A2
Final Report in C.C No.51 of 2016 on the file of the Judicial First
Class Magistrate Court I, Ernakulam on the ground of settlement
between the parties.
2. The petitioner is the accused. The 2nd respondent is
the de-facto complainant.
3. The offence alleged against the petitioner are under
Sections 324 and 341 of IPC
4. The respondent No.2 entered appearance through
counsel. An affidavit sworn in by her is also produced.
5. I have heard Advs. Sri. K.R Vinod and Sri. V. Srinath,
the learned counsel for the petitioner 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
de facto complainant has decided not to proceed with the crime
further. The learned Prosecutor, on instruction, submits that the
Crl.M.C No. 5393 of 2021
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 A2. The
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)
Crl.M.C No. 5393 of 2021
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 A2 Final Report in
C.C No.51 of 2016 on the file of the Judicial First Class
Magistrate Court I, Ernakulam stands hereby quashed.
Sd/-
DR.KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
JUDGE
rpk
Crl.M.C No. 5393 of 2021
APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 5393/2021
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A1 THE COPY OF THE FIR NO.1015/2015 OF THE
MULLAVUKADU POLICE STATION.
Annexure A2 TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN
C.C.N.51/2016 IN THE FILES OF JUDICIAL
FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT I,
ERNAKULAM
Annexure A3 THE AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE RESPONDENT
NO.2.
