Kerala High Court
Jinil Jude vs State Of Kerala on 16 April, 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C. JAYACHANDRAN
TUESDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 27TH CHAITHRA, 1946
CRL.MC NO. 2526 OF 2024
CRIME NO.19/2024 OF Ernakulam Central Police Station, Ernakulam
CC NO.352 OF 2024 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -II,
ERNAKULAM
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
JINIL JUDE
AGED 27 YEARS
S/O JUDAPPAN, VADAKKEKANDATHIL PARAMBU HOUSE, VADUTHALA
JETTY P.O, AROOKKUTY VILLAGE ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 688535.
BY ADVS.
RAFEEK. V.K.
A.LIJIMON
U.M.HASSAN
SALMAN FARIS
NISHNA P.T.
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
PIN - 682031.
2 THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE
ERNAKUAM POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 691306.
3 LINET GEORGE
D/O GEORGE JOSEPH, VADAKKEKKUTT HOUSE, ALAKKOTE
VILLAGE, THALIPPARAMBU, KANNUR, PIN - 670571.
SRI.E.C BINEESH, PP
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
16.04.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
CRL.MC NO. 2526 OF 2024 2
ORDER
The petitioner is the accused in Crime No.19 of
2024 of the Central Police Station, Ernakulam,
wherein the offences alleged are under Sections 354
and 354(D) of the Indian Penal Code. Based on
Annexure A1 Final Report, C.C No.352 of 2024 is
pending consideration before the Judicial First
Class Magistrate Court - II, Ernakulam.
2. The petitioner seeks to quash Annexure A1
Final Report in the Calendar Case above referred,
on the premise that the disputes between the
petitioner and the 3rd respondent/de facto
complainant have been settled amicably by and
between them and the 3rd respondent is not any more
interested to prosecute the case against the
petitioner. Along with the Crl.M.C, the petitioner
produced Annexure A2 affidavit, wherein the de
facto complainant would endorse that the disputes
have been settled between herself and the
petitioner and she has no surviving grievance
against him. The deponent would also state that
she is not interested to prosecute the matter any
more and therefore, she has no objection in
quashing the Final Report in the crime above
referred.
3. When this matter was moved, the learned
Prosecutor was directed to get instructions along
with a signed statement of the de facto
complainant. The same is made available, a perusal
of which would reiterate that the matter has been
settled and the de facto complainant is not
interested to prosecute the case any more.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner
and the learned Public Prosecutor.
5. In view of the judgments of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in B.S. Joshi & Ors vs State Of
Haryana & Anr [2003 (4) SCC 675] and Gian Singh
v. State of Punjab [(2012) 10 SCC 303], this Court
finds that no useful purpose is to be served by
continuing the prosecution as against the
petitioner, inasmuch as the defacto complainant had
unequivocally expressed her intention to withdraw
the criminal proceedings against the petitioner.
The issues involved in this crime are private in
nature, without impacting the society at large.
In the circumstances,this Crl.M.C is allowed
and Annexure A1 Final Report and all further
proceedings in C.C No.352 of 2024 of the Judicial
First Class Magistrate Court - II, Ernakulam are
hereby quashed.
Sd/-
C. JAYACHANDRAN
JUDGE
Sru
PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES
Annexure1 TRUE COPY OF FINAL REPORT IN C.C.352/2024
WITH FIR ON THE FILES OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS
MAGISTRATE COURT-II, ERNAKULAM, ERNAKULAM
DISTRICT.
Annexure A2 TRUE COPY OF AFFIDAVIT DATED 28-02-2024
FURNISHED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
