Manish N Menon vs State Of Kerala
2022 Latest Caselaw 8856 Ker

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                     PRESENT
              THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
   THURSDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF JULY 2022 / 16TH ASHADHA, 1944
                    CRL.MC NO. 4215 OF 2022
 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC 893/2020 OF JUDICIAL FIRST
             CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, TRIPUNITHURA
       CRIME NO. 20/2020 OF UDAYAMPEROOR POLICE STATION
PETITIONERS/ACCUSED:

       1       MANISH N MENON
               AGED 28 YEARS
               REVATHY HOUSE, CHITHRALAYAMCOUMPOUND,
               VETTIKAPPILLY RES. UDAYAMPEROOR
               PIN - 682307
       2       NANDAKUMAR K MENON
               AGED 64 YEARS
               REVATHY HOUSE, CHITHRALAYAMCOUMPOUND,
               VETTIKAPPILLY RES. UDAYAMPEROOR
               PIN - 682307
       3       INDIRA N MENON
               AGED 58 YEARS
               REVATHY HOUSE, CHITHRALAYAMCOUMPOUND,
               VETTIKAPPILLY RES. UDAYAMPEROOR.
               PIN - 682307
               BY ADVS.
               P.A.MOHAMMED ASLAM
               MOHAMMED MUBARAK A.I.
               SARATH SASI
               E.B.THAJUDDEEN

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

       1       STATE OF KERALA
               REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF
               KERALA, PIN - 682031
       2       DIVYA M S
               AGED 29 YEARS
               MUNDETH PARAMBU, THAIKKATTUKARA P.O, AMBATTUKAVU,
               ALUVA- 683106 , PIN - 683106
               BY ADV ASHI SUKUMARAN

               SRI P G MANU-SR PP

THIS       CRIMINAL   MISC.   CASE   HAVING    COME   UP   FOR   ADMISSION   ON
07.07.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
 Crl.M.C.No.4215 of 2022


                                  ..2..




                                ORDER

This Crl.M.C. has been preferred to quash Annexure-1 Final

Report in C.C. No. 893/2020 on the file of the Judicial First Class

Magistrate's Court, Thripunithura on the ground of settlement

between the parties.

2. The petitioners are the accused Nos. 1 to 3. The

respondent No. 2 is the de facto complainant.

3. The offence alleged against the petitioners is punishable

under Section 498A 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 Sri. Mohammed Aslam, the learned counsel

for the petitioners, Sri. Ashi Sukumaran, the learned counsel for the

respondent No. 2 and Sri. P.G. Manu, the learned Senior Public

Prosecutor.

6. The averments in the petition as well as the affidavit Crl.M.C.No.4215 of 2022

..3..

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

prevent abuse of process of any Court.

Crl.M.C.No.4215 of 2022

..4..

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-1. The offence in

question does 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-1 Final Report in

C.C. No. 893/2020 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's

Court, Thripunithura hereby stands quashed.

Sd/-

DR.KAUSER EDAPPAGATH, JUDGE RMV Crl.M.C.No.4215 of 2022

..5..

APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 4215/2022

PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure1 FINAL REPORT ALONG WITH THE FIR Annexure2 THE AFFIDAVIT OF CW1/ 2ND RESPONDENT