Kerala High Court
Shaju M J vs State Of Kerala on 11 January, 2023
CRL.MC NO. 8107 OF 2022 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF JANUARY 2023 / 21ST POUSHA, 1944
CRL.MC NO. 8107 OF 2022
CRIME NO.1/2004 OF Vettilappara Police Station, Thrissur
AGAINST CC 970/2004 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS - I,
CHALAKUDY
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
SHAJU M J, AGED 54 YEARS
S/O JOHN, RESIDING AT MALIAKKEL HOUSE,
JOSEPURAM, ANGAMALY, PIN - 683572
BY ADVS.
C.M.NAZAR
K.MINI MOLE (M-1356)
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031
2 MOLLY A V
AGED 50 YEARS
D/O LATE ANTONY, VAZHAKALA HOUSE,
PADUVAPURAM P.O. POOVANTHURUTHU,
KOTTAYAM, PIN - 683576
BY ADVS.
R1 BY SMT.T.V.NEEMA-SR.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
R2 BY SRI.Johnson Abraham
NELSON ABRAHAM(K/105/2001)
EMIL JOHNSON(K/000870/2022)
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
11.01.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
CRL.MC NO. 8107 OF 2022 2
O R D E R
This Crl.M.C. has been preferred to quash all further
proceedings in C.C.No.970/2004 on the file of the Judicial First Class
Magistrate Court, Chalakkudy on the ground of settlement between
the parties.
2. The petitioner is the accused. The 2nd respondent is the de
facto complainant.
3. The offence alleged against the petitioner is punishable
under Section 498A of IPC.
4. The respondent No.2 entered appearance through counsel.
An affidavit sworn in by her is also produced.
5. I have heard Sri.C.M.Nazar, the learned counsel for the
petitioner, Sri.Johnson Abraham, 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
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 nature.
No public interest or harmony will be adversely affected by quashing
the proceedings. 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. All further proceedings in
C.C.No.970/2004 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate
Court, Chalakkudy hereby stands quashed.
Sd/-
DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
JUDGE
ab
APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 8107/2022
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A1 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION
AND SENTENCE DATED 31.01.2009 IN C.C NO.
970 OF 2004 PASSED BY THE JUDICIAL FIRST
CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, CHALAKUDY
Annexure A2 A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE COMPROMISE
PETITION FILED BY THE PARTIES BEFORE THE
HON'BLE FAMILY COURT ERNAKULAM IN O.P NO.
2543 OF 2020
Annexure A3 AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE DEFACTO
COMPLAINANT- 2ND RESPONDENT
RESPONDENTS ANNEXURES: NIL
