Ray Rajan vs State Of Kerala
2022 Latest Caselaw 3655 Ker

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                            PRESENT
          THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
  THURSDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF MARCH 2022 / 3RD CHAITHRA, 1944
                    CRL.MC NO. 2705 OF 2021
        CRIME NO.225/2014 OF Kadakkavoor Police Station,
 Thiruvananthapuram    IN CC 1006/2014 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE
                   OF FIRST CLASS I, VARKALA
PETITIONERS/ACCUSED:

    1      RAY RAJAN, AGED 38 YEARS
           S/O.R RAJAN, R.S.NIVAS, KODAMBILLY, VAKKOM,
           THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.

    2      SUGANDHI
           AGED 65 YEARS
           W/O. R.RAJAN, R.S.NIVAS, KODAMBILLY, VAKKOM,
           THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.

    3      SUJA
           AGED 36 YEARS
           D/O. SUGANDHI, R.S.NIVAS, KODAMBILLY, VAKKOM,
           THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.

           BY ADV LATHEESH SEBASTIAN



RESPONDENTS/STATE & COMPLAINANT & VICTIM:

    1      STATE OF KERALA
           REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT
           OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031.

    2      THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER
           KADAKKAVOOR POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
           DISTRICT-695 309.
 Crl.M.C.No.2705/2021

                                 -:2:-

     3     ARUNA, AGED 34 YEARS
           D/O. ANILKUMAR, PATTIYATHIL, ANATHALAVATTOM P.O.,
           KADAKKAVOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT-695 306.

           BY ADV SHAJIN S.HAMEED

           SMT. T.V. NEEMA, SR. PP




      THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON   24.03.2022,   THE   COURT    ON     THE   SAME   DAY   PASSED   THE
FOLLOWING:
 Crl.M.C.No.2705/2021

                                -:3:-



                              ORDER

Dated this the 24th day of March, 2022

This Crl.M.C. has been preferred to quash Annexure A1

Final Report in C.C.No.1006/2014 on the files of the Judicial first

Class Magistrate Court I, Varkala on the ground of settlement

between the parties.

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

respondent is the defacto complainant.

3. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under

Sections 498 A and 34 of IPC.

4. The respondent No.3 entered appearance through

counsel.

5. I have heard Sri. Latheesh Sebastian, the learned

counsel for the petitioners, Sri. Shajan S. Hameed, the learned

counsel for the respondent No.3 and Smt. T.V. Neema, the

learned Senior Public Prosecutor.

6. There are so many matrimonial disputes between the Crl.M.C.No.2705/2021

parties. All the disputes were settled at the mediation and

Annexure A2 settlement agreement was executed. The learned

counsel for the defacto complainant on the last posting submitted

that the 1st petitioner did not comply with the Clause Nos. iii and

iv in Annexure A2 agreement. Therefore, the defacto

complainant was directed to be present before this Court. The

learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the 1 st

petitioner is ready to pay all the maintenance due in three

instalments. The first instalment of Rs.50,000/- has already

been paid, submitted both counsel. The learned counsel for the

petitioners submitted that the balance two instalments will be

paid within two months from today. The counsel also undertakes

that future maintenance will be paid without any default. These

submissions are recorded. On the last hearing date, when the

defacto complainant was present before me, she has submitted

that she has no objection in quashing the proceedings on the

basis of the compromise, on receipt of the first instalment. The

1st instalment has already been paid.

7. The Apex Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab Crl.M.C.No.2705/2021

[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 A1. 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 further. Crl.M.C.No.2705/2021

Accordingly, the Crl.M.C. is allowed. Annexure A1 Final Report in

C.C.No.1006/2014 on the files of the Judicial first Class

Magistrate Court I, Varkala stands hereby quashed.

Sd/-

                                            DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
                                                       JUDGE
kp                          True copy
                               P.A. To Judge
 Crl.M.C.No.2705/2021



                  APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 2705/2021

PETITIONER ANNEXURES

ANNEXURE A1            TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME
                       NO.225/2014 OF KADAKKAVOOR POLICE
                       STATION.

ANNEXURE A2            TRUE COPY OF THE SETTLEMENT ARRIVED BY

THE IST PETITIONER AND 3RD RESPONDENT IN OP NO.253/2014, M.C.72/2014 AND O.P.NO.175/2016 DATED 29.6.2016.

ANNEXURE A3 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE FAMILY COURT, ATTINGAL DATED 11.7.2016 IN OP(HMA) NO.175/2016.