Sajeena vs State Of Kerala
2022 Latest Caselaw 5410 Ker

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                             PRESENT
           THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
    FRIDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF MAY 2022 / 30TH VAISAKHA, 1944
                     CRL.MC NO. 2322 OF 2022
        CRIME NO.3931/2020 OF PATHANANTHITTA POLICE STATION
PETITIONER/S:

    1       SAJEENA, AGED 44 YEARS, W/O LATE SHAJI HASSAN,
            SHEEJA MANZIL,VETTIPURAM MURI, PATHANAMTHITTA P.O.,
            KOZHENCHERRY TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN -
            689645
    2       FATHIMA, AGED 24 YEARS, D/O SAJEENA, SHEEJA MANZIL,
            VETTIPURAM MURI, PATHANAMTHITTA P.O.,KOZHENCHERRY
            TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN - 689645
            BY ADVS.
            MANU RAMACHANDRAN
            M.KIRANLAL
            R.RAJESH (VARKALA)
            T.S.SARATH
            SAMEER M NAIR
            HARSHA SUSAN SAM
            GEETHU KRISHNAN
            SABIKH MOHAMMED V.S

RESPONDENTS/STATE, I.O & DE FACTO COMPLAINANT:

    1       STATE OF KERALA
            REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
            HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031
    2       THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, POLICE STATION OF
            PATHANAMTHITTA, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN -
            689645
    3       SUBAIDAMMAL, AGED 83 YEARS, W/O LATE. M. HASSAN,
            SHEEJA MANZIL,HOUSE NO.VII/378, VETTIPURAM MURI,
            PATHANAMTHITTA P.O., KOZHENCHERRY TALUK,
            PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN - 689645
            BY ADVS

            SRI M P PRASANTH-PP
            SRI ANSU VARGHESE -R3

      THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
20.05.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
 CrlM.C. No.2322/2022

                                ..2..




                             ORDER

Dated this the 20th day of May, 2022

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

FIR in Crime No.3931/2020 of Pathanamthitta Police Station,

Pathanamthitta on the ground of settlement between the

parties.

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

respondent is the de facto complainant.

3. The offences alleged against the petitioners are

punishable under Sections 452, 323, 341, 294(b), 506 and r/w

S.34 of the IPC.

4. The 3rd respondent entered appearance through

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

5. I have heard Sri.Manu Ramachandran, the learned

counsel for the petitioners, Sri.Ansu Varghese, the learned

counsel for the 3rd respondent and Sri.M.P.Prasanth, the

learned Public Prosecutor.

6. The averments in the petition as well as the

affidavit sworn in by the 3 rd respondent would show that the CrlM.C. No.2322/2022

..3..

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.

8. The dispute in the above case is purely personal in CrlM.C. No.2322/2022

..4..

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 any

further. Accordingly, the Crl.M.C. is allowed. Annexure-A1 FIR

in Crime No.3931/2020 of Pathanamthitta Police Station,

Pathanamthitta hereby stands quashed.

Sd/-

DR.KAUSER EDAPPAGATH, JUDGE ded/20.05.2022 CrlM.C. No.2322/2022

..5..

APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 2322/2022

PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure A1 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.3931/2020 OF POLICE STATION OF PATHANAMTHITTA, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT Annexure A2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) NO. 15497/2021 AND CONNECTED CASES DATED 01.10.2021 BY THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT Annexure A3 THE ORIGINAL OF THE AFFIDAVIT DATED 08.03.2022 SWORN BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT/DE-FACTO COMPLAINANT

RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS : NIL.

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE