Anil Kumar vs Sub Inspector Of Police
2023 Latest Caselaw 11442 Ker

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                PRESENT
                 THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.
   WEDNESDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2023 / 17TH KARTHIKA, 1945
                        CRL.MC NO. 7754 OF 2023
        CRIME NO.679/2022 OF Thenmala Police Station, Kollam
 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT CC 87/2023 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF
                        FIRST CLASS -I, PUNALUR
PETITIONER/S:

           ANIL KUMAR
           AGED 46 YEARS
           S/O. LATE SIVADASAN, MANJU BHAVANAM, GANDHI JUNCTION,
           THENMALA P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 691308

           BY ADVS.
           JOHNSON MANAYANI
           JEEVAN MATHEW MANAYANI



RESPONDENT/S:

    1      SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE
           THENMALA POLICE STATION, THENMALA P.O., KOLLAM
           DISTRICT, PIN - 691308

    2      STATE OF KERALA
           REP BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
           ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031

    3      XXXXXXXXXX
           XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX

    4      XXXXXXXXXX
           XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX

           BY ADV ANTONY THOMAS


OTHER PRESENT:

           SRI G SUDHEER (PP)

     THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
08.11.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
 Crl. M.C. No.7754/2023                -2-

                                  ORDER

The petitioner is the accused in Crime No.679/2022 of Thenmala Police

Station, Kollam District which is now pending as C.C.No.87/2023 before the

Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Punalur. The petitioner faces

prosecution under Sections 323,427 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

Section 31 (1) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005

and Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act,

2015.

2. When the matter is taken up for consideration today it is the

submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that all issues between

the petitioner and respondents 3 and 4 (de facto complainants) have been

settled. He also produced joint affidavit of respondents 3 and 4 as Annexure-

A4.

3. Heard the learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for

respondents 3 and 4 also.

4. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and

considering the fact that all issues between the petitioner and the respondents

3 and 4 have been settled and also considering Annexure-A4 joint affidavit of

respondents 3 and 4, I am of the view that this is fit case where, the

jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. can be invoked and the

proceedings against the petitioner can be quashed on the ground of

settlement. Keeping in mind the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Gian

Singh v. State of Punjab; (2012) 10 SCC 303 and State of M.P. v.

Laxmi Narayan; (2019) 5 SCC 688, I am of the view that the proceedings

against the petitioner can be quashed on the ground of settlement. No public

purpose would be served by continuing with the proceedings against the

petitioner. In the result, this Crl.M.C. is allowed and all further proceedings

against the petitioner, in C.C.No.87/2023 before the Judicial First Class

Magistrate Court-I, Punalur will stand quashed.

Sd/-

GOPINATH P.

JUDGE AMG