Kerala High Court
Nishad Omanakuttan vs State Of Kerala on 13 March, 2025
2025:KER:22151
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C. JAYACHANDRAN
THURSDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 22ND PHALGUNA, 1946
CRL.MC NO. 1825 OF 2025
CRIME NO.901/2022 OF Town North Police Station, Palakkad
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN CC NO.384 OF 2023
OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -II,PALAKKAD
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
NISHAD OMANAKUTTAN
AGED 22 YEARS
CHEMMAMKODE HOUSE, MANKADA, MANKADA P.O
MALAPPURAM DIST, PIN - 679332
BY ADV SANOJ M.A.
RESPONDENTS/STATE/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, PIN - 682031
2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER
PALGHAT TOWN NORTH, PALAKKAD DISTRICT,
PIN - 678001
3 ADITHYA S NAIR
AGED 21 YEARS
MINI NIVAS, VELLILA, VELLILA P.O MALAPPURAM, PIN -
679342
BY ADV JERIN GEORGE
SRI. SANAL P. RAJ (PP)
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
13.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:22151
Crl.MC.No.1825 of 2025
:2:
C.JAYACHANDRAN, J.
------------------------------------
Crl.MC.No.1825 of 2025
------------------------------------
Dated this the 13th day of March, 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
2025:KER:22151
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 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
2025:KER:22151
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."
2. In the facts at hand, petitioner is the sole
accused in Crime No.901 of 2022 of Town North Police
Station, Palakkad, now pending as C.C.No.384/2023
before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II,
Palakkad. As per the Final report, the offences
alleged are under Section 354(D), 506(i), 511 and
306 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,
learned counsel for the defacto
2025:KER:22151
complainant/respondent no.3 and the learned Senior
Public Prosecutor. Perused the records.
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 issues between the petitioner and the
defacto complainant are settled amicably and that
they are residing together harmoniously as husband
and wife. The defacto complainant would further
state that the complaint against the petitioner was
registered due to compulsion from her family and not
at her instance; wherefore, she 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-7, wherein she would unequivocally state
that the disputes have been settled amicably and
2025:KER:22151
that they are married. The defacto complainant would
also swear that she has no surviving grievance
against the petitioner and that she has no objection
in quashing the criminal proceedings against 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.
Learned counsel for the defacto complainant would
also endorse that the quashment sought for can be
allowed.
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
2025:KER:22151
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 offence under Section 506(i) is
compoundable, which is all the more a reason to
accept the compromise between the parties.
In the circumstances, this Crl.M.C. is allowed.
Annexure-1 FIR, Annexure-2 Final Report, and all
further proceedings in C.C.No.384/2023 of the
Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Palakkad,
are hereby quashed.
Sd/-
C. JAYACHANDRAN, JUDGE.
Raj.
2025:KER:22151
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure 1 THE TRUE COPY OF FIRST INFORMATION
REPORT NO. 0901/2022 DATED 24.09.2022,
IS PRODUCED HEREWITH AND MARKED AS
ANNEXURE 1.
Annexure 2 THE TRUE COPY OF FINAL REPORT
NO.14/2023 DATED ON 20.03.2023 BEFORE
THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE
COURT II, PALAKKAD, WHICH IS PRODUCED
HEREWITH AND MARKED AS ANNEXURE 2
Annexure 3 THE TRUE COPY OF COMPUTATION CHARGE
FORM NO. 32 IS PRODUCED HEREWITH AND
MARKED AS ANNEXURE 3.
Annexure 4 THE TRUE COPY OF DEPOSITION DATED
07.11.2024 OF DEFACTO COMPLAINANT IS
PRODUCED HEREWITH AND MARKED AS
ANNEXURE 4.
Annexure 5 DATED ON 14.11.2024 MARRIAGE
CERTIFICATE IS PRODUCED HEREWITH AND
MARKED AS ANNEXURE 5
Annexure 6 THE MARRIAGE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE
PETITIONER AND DEFACTO COMPLAINANT ARE
PRODUCED HEREWITH AND MARKED AS
ANNEXURE 6.
Annexure 7 THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN TO BY THE DE FACTO
COMPLAINANT /3RD RESPONDENT DATED
11.02.2025 IS PRODUCED HEREWITH AND
MARKED AS ANNEXURE 7.
