Kerala High Court
Suby M.S. @ Subin vs State Of Kerala on 6 July, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF JULY 2022 / 15TH ASHADHA, 1944
CRL.MC NO. 3541 OF 2022
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC 2432/2021 OF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS ,IRINJALAKUDA
CRIME NO. 1317/2020 OF IRINJALAKKUDA POLICE STATION
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
SUBY M.S. @ SUBIN
AGED 43 YEARS
VALIYAVEETTIL HOUSE, MADATHIKKARA URAKAM DESAM,
PULLUR VILLAGE, IRINJALAKUDA, THRISSUR, PIN -
680683
BY ADVS.
DHANYA P.ASHOKAN
M.R.VENUGOPAL
S. MUHAMMAD ALIKHAN
RESPONDENTS/STATE & DE FACTO COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, PIN - 682031
2 RAMYA.C.S
AGED 30 YEARS
CHITTETH HOUSE, KORATTY ATTAPADAM DESOM,
CHALAKKUDY TALUK, IRINJALAKUDA, IRINJALAKUDA,
THRISSUR, PIN - 680308
BY ADV ARUN SEBASTIAN
SMT T V NEEMA-SR PP
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
06.07.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl. M.C. No. 3541 of 2022
..2..
ORDER
This Crl.M.C. has been preferred to quash Annexure II
Final Report in Crime No. 1317/2020 of Irinjalakuda police station
on the ground of settlement between the parties.
2. The petitioner is the sole accused. The respondent No. 2
is the de facto complainant.
3. The offences alleged against the petitioner are
punishable under Sections 406, 420 and 494 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 Sri. Venugopal, the learned counsel for the
petitioner, Sri. Arun Sebastian, the learned counsel for the
respondent No. 2 and Smt. T. V Neema, the learned Senior 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
Crl. M.C. No. 3541 of 2022
..3..
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
prevent abuse of process of any Court.
8. The dispute in the above case is purely personal in
Crl. M.C. No. 3541 of 2022
..4..
nature. No public interest or harmony will be adversely affected by
quashing the proceedings pursuant to Annexure II. 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 II Final Report in
Crime No. 1317/2020 of Irinjalakuda police station hereby stands
quashed.
Sd/-
DR.KAUSER EDAPPAGATH,
JUDGE
RMV/06/07/2022
Crl. M.C. No. 3541 of 2022
..5..
APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 3541/2022
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure I CERTIFIED COPY OF FIR ALONG WITH FIS
IN CRIME NO. 1317/2020 OF
IRINJALAKKUDA POLICE STATION
Annexure II CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT
DATED 04.10.2021
Annexure III COPY OF AFFIDAVIT DATED 28/05/2022
SWORN INTO BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT
