Kerala High Court
Aji Mathew vs State Of Kerala on 17 January, 2025
2025:KER:3975
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C. JAYACHANDRAN
FRIDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF JANUARY 2025 / 27TH POUSHA, 1946
CRL.MC NO. 10274 OF 2024
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN CC NO.15 OF 2023 OF
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS ,KASARAGOD
PETITIONERS/ACCUSED:
1 AJI MATHEW,
AGED 2 YEARS
S/O MATHEW, RESIDING AT MUTTATHUKUNNEL HOUSE,
BALAL (P.O), VELLARIKUNDU TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.,
PIN - 671533
2 SUBAIR .P,
AGED 40 YEARS
S/O KALANDAR, RESIDING AT PUTHIYAPURAYIL
HOUSE,KONNAKKADU, MALOTH VILLAGE, VELLARIKUNDU TALUK,
KASARAGOD DISTRICT., PIN - 671533
3 A.V. MATHEW,
AGED 78 YEARS
CONGRESS LEADER, RESIDING AT MUTTATHUKUNNEL HOUSE,
BALAL (P.O), VELLARIKUNDU TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.,
PIN - 671533
4 ANIL KUMAR T.P,
AGED 64 YEARS
S/O K.S. NAIR, 447, 11TH CROSS, 3RD MAIN, HMT LAYOUT,
VIDYARANYAPURA,BANGALORE., PIN - 560097
BY ADV JAWAHAR JOSE
RESPONDENTS/STATE AND DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031
Crl.M.C.No. 10274 of 2024
..2..
2025:KER:3975
2 AMBILY JOSE,
AGED 41 YEARS
D/O LATE JOSE, RESIDING AT PERUMBALLIKUNNEL
HOUSE,VALLIKADAVU (P.O), MALOM VILLAGE,
VELLARIKUNDU TALUK, PARAPPA (VIA), KASARAGOD
DISTRICT., PIN - 671533
BY ADV GREGORY PRINCE MYLADI
ADV.E.C.BINEESH - PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 17.01.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED
THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.M.C.No. 10274 of 2024
..3..
2025:KER:3975
O R D E R
Dated this the 17th day of January, 2025
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 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
..4..
2025:KER:3975
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
heinous 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 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."
..5..
2025:KER:3975
2. In the facts at hand, petitioners are accused nos. 1
to 4 in C.C.No.15/2023 of the Judicial First Class
Magistrate Court-I, Kasargod, which is a private complaint
preferred by the 2nd respondent/defacto complainant. The
offences alleged are under Sections 465, 468 and 471 of
the Indian Penal Code. The petitioners seek quashment of
the entire proceedings in the above Calendar Case, on the
strength of the settlement arrived at by and between the
parties.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners,
learned counsel for the defacto complainant/respondent
no. 2 and the learned Senior Public Prosecutor. Perused
the records.
4. 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 issues
between the petitioners and the defacto complainant are
..6..
2025:KER:3975
settled and that the defacto complainant has no objection
in quashing the criminal proceedings against the
petitioners. That apart, it is noticed that, along with
this Crl.M.C, an affidavit has been sworn to by the
defacto complainant (2nd respondent herein) as
Annexure-A2, wherein she would unequivocally state that
the disputes have been settled and that they have decided
to dissolve their marriage by mutual consent. The defacto
complainant would also swear that she does not intend to
proceed with the prosecution any further and that she has
no objection in quashing the criminal proceedings against
the petitioners. The affidavit is sworn to on her own
volition, without any compulsion, whatsoever. This Court
is therefore convinced that the settlement arrived at is
genuine and bonafide.
5. 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
..7..
2025:KER:3975
convinced that further proceedings against the petitioners
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.
In the circumstances, this Crl.M.C. is allowed. All
further proceedings in C.C.No.15/2023 of the Judicial
First Class Magistrate Court-I, Kasargod, is hereby
quashed.
Sd/-
C. JAYACHANDRAN
JUDGE
TR
..8..
2025:KER:3975
APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 10274/2024
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A1 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED
BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT AGAINST THE
PETITIONERS BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FIRST
CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-II, HOSDURG.
Annexure A2 ORIGINAL AFFIDAVIT EXECUTED BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT EVIDENCING SETTLEMENT.
