Sreenath vs State Of Kerala
2022 Latest Caselaw 8341 Ker

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                     PRESENT
              THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
       FRIDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF JULY 2022 / 10TH ASHADHA, 1944
                          CRL.MC NO. 3853 OF 2022
 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC 156/2022 OF JUDICIAL FIRST
                  CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, TRIPUNITHURA
            CRIME NO.438/2021 OF UDAYAMPEROOR POLICE STATION
PETITIONERS/ACCUSED Nos. 1 & 2:

       1       SREENATH
               AGED 29 YEARS
               S/O LATE REMAKANTHAN, FISHERMAN COLONY,
               HOUSE NO.1, UDAYAMPEROOR, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682307
       2       SREEKANTH
               AGED 30 YEARS
               S/O LATE REMAKANTHAN, FISHERMAN COLONY,
               HOUSE NO.1, UDAYAMPEROOR, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682307
               BY ADVS.
               SANJANA RACHEL JOSE
               JOSE PALLATTUKARAN


RESPONDENTS/STATE & DE FACTO COMPLAINANT:

       1       STATE OF KERALA
               REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF
               KERALA, PIN - 682031
       2       ISAMOL BABY
               AGED 35 YEARS
               W/O VARGHESE M.V, MANAPARAMBIL HOUSE,
               UDAYAMPEROOR P.O, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682307

               BY ADVS.
               PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
               LAKSHMI MOHAN



               SMT T V NEEMA -SR PP

THIS       CRIMINAL   MISC.   CASE   HAVING    COME   UP   FOR   ADMISSION   ON
01.07.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
 Crl.M.C.No.3853 of 2022


                                 ..2..




                              ORDER

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

Report in C.C. No. 156/2022 on the file of the Judicial First Class

Magistrate's Court, Thrippunithura on the ground of settlement

between the parties.

2. The petitioners are the accused Nos. 1 and 2. The

respondent No. 2 is the de facto complainant.

3. The offences alleged against the petitioners are

punishable under Sections 294(b), 354, 509 and 506 read with 34 of

the IPC.

4. The respondent No. 2 entered appearance through

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

5. I have heard Smt. Sanjana Rachel Jose, the learned

counsel for the petitioners, Smt. Lakshmi Mohan, the learned

counsel for the respondent No. 2 and Smt. T.V. Neema, the learned

Public Prosecutor.

Crl.M.C.No.3853 of 2022

..3..

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 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 Crl.M.C.No.3853 of 2022

..4..

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 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 any further.

Accordingly, the Crl.M.C. is allowed. Annexure I Final Report in

C.C. No. 156/2022 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's

Court, Thrippunithura hereby stands quashed.

Sd/-

DR.KAUSER EDAPPAGATH, JUDGE RMV/01/07/2022 Crl.M.C.No.3853 of 2022

..5..

APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 3853/2022

PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure-I A TRUE COPY OF THE CHARGESHEET IN C.C NO.156/2022 PENDING BEFORE THE HON'BLE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, THRIPPUNITHURA Annexure-II A TRUE COPY OF THE BAIL ORDER DATED 25.12.2021 IN B.A NO.4168/2021 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT Annexure-III A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION ACKNOWLEDGED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT HEREIN DATED 19.12.2021