Kerala High Court
Jayakumar V vs State Of Kerala on 7 February, 2025
2025:KER:10856
CRL.MC NO.8828 OF 2024
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C. JAYACHANDRAN
FRIDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2025 / 18TH MAGHA, 1946
CRL.MC NO. 8828 OF 2024
CRIME NO.3071/2017 OF FORT POLICE STATION,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN CC
NO.128 OF 2018 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -
II,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
JAYAKUMAR V
AGED 40 YEARS
S/O.VIJAYAKUMARAN NAIR, RESIDING AT JAYA BHAVAN,
THALAYAL, AARALUMMOOD P.O., NEYYATTINKARA,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695123
BY ADVS.
GOVIND PADMANAABHAN
G.P.SHINOD
AJIT G ANJARLEKAR
ATUL MATHEWS
GAYATHRI S.B.
RESPONDENTS/STATE/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031.
2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER
OFFICE OF THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER FORT POLICE
STATION, FORT P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT,
PIN - 695023.
2025:KER:10856
CRL.MC NO.8828 OF 2024
2
3 PRIYA BALARAM
AGED 48 YEARS
W/O BALARAM, RESIDING AT NANDINI GARDENS, FLAT
NO.215 D BLOCK, FORT WARD, VANCHIYOOR,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695023
E.C.BINEESH -PP
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 07.02.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:10856
CRL.MC NO.8828 OF 2024
3
C.JAYACHANDRAN, J.
=======================
Crl.M.C No.8828 of 2024
========================
Dated this the 7th day of February, 2025
ORDER
A five Judges Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High
Court in Kulwinder Singh and Others v. State of Punjab
and Another [(2007) 4 CTC 769], framed broad
guidelines as regards quashment of the criminal
proceedings under Section 482 of the Code in respect
of offences which are not compoundable in terms of
Section 320 of the Code. One among the guidelines was
that the offences against human body, other than
murder and culpable homicide, may be permitted to be
compounded, when the court is in a position to record
a finding that the settlement between the parties is
voluntary and fair. These guidelines were quoted with
approval by a three Judges Bench of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and
2025:KER:10856
CRL.MC NO.8828 OF 2024
another [(2012) 10 SCC 303]. Similarly in Narinder
Singh and Others v. State of Punjab [(2014) 6 SCC
466], the Hon'ble Supreme Court has gone to the extent
of sanctioning invocation of the inherent power under
section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code to quash
the F.I.R in a crime alleging offence under Section
307, which is a henious and serious offence. A
practical approach is seen adopted by the Hon'ble
Supreme in Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab
[(2008) 4 SCC 582] as regards quashment in respect of
offences like 379, 406, 409, 418, etc., the relevant
findings of which are extracted herebelow:
"6. We need to emphasise that it is perhaps
advisable that in disputes where the question
involved is of a purely personal nature, the
court should ordinarily accept the terms of
the compromise even in criminal proceedings as
keeping the matter alive with no possibility
of a result in favour of the prosecution is a
luxury which the courts, grossly overburdened
as they are, cannot afford and that the time
2025:KER:10856
CRL.MC NO.8828 OF 2024
so saved can be utilised in deciding more
effective and meaningful litigation. This is a
common sense approach to the matter based on
ground of realities and bereft of the
technicalities of the law."
2. In the facts at hand, petitioner is the sole
accused in Crime No.3071 of 2017 of Fort Police
Station, Thiruvananthapuram, now pending as
C.C.No.128/2018 before the Judicial First Class
Magistrate Court-II, Thiruvananthapuram. The offences
alleged are under Section 294(b), 506 and 427 of the
Indian Penal Code. The petitioner seeks quashment of
entire proceedings in the above Calendar Case, on the
strength of the settlement arrived at by and between
the parties.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and
the learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the records.
2025:KER:10856
CRL.MC NO.8828 OF 2024
5. When this Crl.M.C was moved, this Court directed to
record the statement of the defacto complainant. The
said direction was complied and the statement was
handed over. On perusal of the same, it is clear that
the complaint was filed by the defacto complainant due
to the mental distress experienced by her, at the time
of the incident and that she is disinterested to
continue with the prosecution case, any further. The
defacto complainant has no objection in quashing the
criminal proceedings against the petitioner. That
apart, it is noticed that, along with this Crl.M.C, an
affidavit has been sworn to by the defacto complainant
(3rd respondent herein) as Annexure-C, wherein she
would unequivocally state that the disputes have been
settled out of the Court and that the complaint
stemmed from misconception of facts. The defacto
complainant would also swear that she has no
subsisting grievance against the petitioner and has no
objection in quashing the criminal proceedings against
2025:KER:10856
CRL.MC NO.8828 OF 2024
the petitioner. The affidavit is sworn to on her own
volition. This Court is therefore convinced that the
settlement arrived at is genuine and bonafide.
6. In the light of the above referred facts, this
Court is of the opinion that the necessary parameters,
as culled out in Narinder Singh (supra), Madan Mohan
Abbot (supra) and Gian Singh (Supra), are fully
satisfied. This court is convinced that further
proceedings against the petitioner will be a futile
exercise, inasmuch as the disputes have already been
settled. There is little possibility of any conviction
in the crime. Dehors the settlement arrived at by and
between the parties, if they are compelled to face the
criminal proceedings, the same, in the estimation of
this Court, will amount to abuse of process of Court.
The quashment sought for would secure the ends of
justice. This Court also notice that offences under
Sections 427 and 506 are compoundable, which is all
2025:KER:10856
CRL.MC NO.8828 OF 2024
the more a reason to accept the compromise between the
parties.
In the circumstances, this Crl.M.C. is allowed.
Annexure-A FIR in Crime No.3071/2017 Fort Police
Station, Annexure-B final report and all further
proceedings in C.C.No.128/2018 of the Judicial First
Class Magistrate Court-II, Thiruvananthapuram, are
hereby quashed.
Sd/-
C.JAYACHANDRAN,JUDGE
Pvv
2025:KER:10856
CRL.MC NO.8828 OF 2024
PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES
ANNEXURE A A TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO:
3071 OF 2017 OF FORT POLICE STATION,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DATED 30-11-2017
ANNEXURE B CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN
CC NO: 128/2018 OF THE COURT OF THE
JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE II,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
ANNEXURE C THE ORIGINAL AFFIDAVIT DATED 17-05-2024
SWORN TO BY THE DE FACTO COMPLAINANT/
3RD RESPONDENT
