Prajith vs Athira Prabha
2022 Latest Caselaw 8898 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. 4075 OF 2021
 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC 20/2021 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS
                                ,KOLENCHERRY

PETITIONER/S:
      1       PRAJITH
              AGED 34 YEARS
              S/O. PRATHAPAN, WARD XVI, KUNDEPARAMBIL HOUSE, EDAKOCHI KARA, EDAKOCHI
              VILLAGE, PALLURUTHY KASABA, ERNAKULAM CITY, KERALA, INDIA, PIN - 682010.


      2       PRATHAPAN
              AGED 60 YEARS
              S/O. KRISHNAN, WARD XVI, KUNDEPARAMBIL HOUSE, EDAKOCHI KARA, EDAKOCHI
              VILLAGE, PALLURUTHY KASABA, ERNAKULAM CITY, KERALA, INDIA, PIN - 682010.


      3       JALAJA
              AGED 53 YEARS
              W/O. PRATHAPAN, N, WARD XVI, KUNDEPARAMBIL HOUSE, EDAKOCHI KARA,
              EDAKOCHI VILLAGE, PALLURUTHY KASABA, ERNAKULAM CITY, KERALA, INDIA, PIN -
              682010.


              BY ADVS.
              MANOJ B.MENON
              JIMMY GEORGE (VATTATHARA)
              ANJALI MENON




RESPONDENT/S:
     1      ATHIRA PRABHA
            AGED 26 YEARS
            D/O. PRABHAKARAN, PULLUMALAYIL HOUSE, MONIPPILLY KARA, THIRUVANIYOOR
            VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNAD TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682301.


      2       STATE OF KERALA
              REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
              ERNAKULAM.


              BY ADVS.
              C.R.VINOD KUMAR
              VINUCHAND
              ANILKUMAR C.R.




OTHER PRESENT:
            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.MC NO. 4075 OF 2021
                                     2


                                    ORDER

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

report in C.C No.20 of 2021 on the file of the Judicial First Class

Magistrate Court, Kolenchery on the ground of settlement between

the parties.

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

respondent is the de facto complainant.

3. The offence alleged against the petitioners are punishable

under Sections 498-A, 323, 506, 341 read with 34 of Indian Penal

Code.

4. The respondent No.1 entered appearance through counsel.

An affidavit sworn in by her is also produced.

5. I have heard Sri.Manoj B Menon, the learned counsel for

the petitioners, Sri.C.R.Vinod Kumar, the learned counsel for the

respondent No.1 and Sri.P.G Manu, the learned Public Prosecutor.

6. The averments in the petition as well as the affidavit sworn

in by the respondent No.1 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 CRL.MC NO. 4075 OF 2021

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 nature.

No public interest or harmony will be adversely affected by quashing

the proceedings pursuant to Annexure B. 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, CRL.MC NO. 4075 OF 2021

the Crl.M.C. is allowed. Annexure B Final Report in C.C No.20 of 2021

on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kolenchery

hereby stands quashed.

SD/-

sab                                 DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH

                                              JUDGE
 CRL.MC NO. 4075 OF 2021



                          APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 4075/2021



PETITIONER ANNEXURES

Annexure A                  CERTIFIED COPY OF FIRST INFORMATION REPORT
                            IN CRIME NO. 1291 OF 2020 OF PUTHENCRUZE
                            POLICE STATION.

Annexure B

CERTIFIED COPY OF FINAL FORM/REPORT FILED BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PUTHENCRUZE POLICE BEFORE THE HONOURABLE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, KOLENCHERY.

RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES:

R1(a): ORIGINAL OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT DATED 21.10.2021