Kerala High Court
Xxxxxx vs State Of Kerala And Another on 15 March, 2022
Author: Kauser Edappagath
Bench: Kauser Edappagath
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
TUESDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF MARCH 2022 / 24TH PHALGUNA, 1943
CRL.MC NO. 980 OF 2022
CR.NO.1653/2021 OF THODUPUZHA POLICE STATION CC 736/21 OF
CJM, THODUPUZHA
PETITIONER/S:
1 X1
2 X2
3 X3
BY ADVS. THOMAS J.ANAKKALLUNKAL
ABISHEK JOHNY, NIRMAL CHERIYAN VARGHESE
JAYARAMAN S.
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC
PROSECUTOR , HIGH COURT OF KERALA PIN - 682031
2 YYY
BY ADV SACHIN RAMESH
SRI M P PRASANTH-PP
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 15.03.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:
Crl.M.C.No.980/2022
-:2:-
ORDER
Dated this the 15th day of March, 2022 This Crl.M.C. has been preferred to quash Annexure 1 Final Report in Crime No.1653/2021 of Thodupuzha Police Station now pending as C.C.No.736/2021 on the files of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Thodupuzha on the ground of settlement between the parties.
2. The petitioners are the accused Nos. 1 to 3. The 2 nd respondent is the defacto complainant.
3. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 294(b), 498 A, 323, 324 read with 34 of IPC, Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act.
4. The respondent No.2 entered appearance through counsel. An affidavit sworn in by her is also produced.
5. I have heard Thomas J. Anakkallunkal, the learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri. Sachin Ramesh, the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 and Sri.M.P. Prasanth the Crl.M.C.No.980/2022 -:3:- learned Public Prosecutor.
6. The averments in the petition as well as the affidavit sworn in by the respondent No.2 would show that the entire dispute between the parties has been amicably settled and the de facto complainant has decided not to proceed with the crime further. The learned Prosecutor, on instruction, submits that the matter was enquired into through the investigating officer and a statement of the de facto complainant was also recorded wherein she reported that the matter was amicably settled.
7. The Apex Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab [2012 (4) KLT 108 (SC)], Narinder Singh and Others v. State of Punjab and Others [(2014) 6 SCC 466] and in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan and Others [(2019) 5 SCC 688] has held that the High Court invoking S.482 of Cr.P.C can quash criminal proceedings in relation to non compoundable offence where the parties have settled the matter between themselves notwithstanding the bar under S.320 of Cr.P.C. if it is warranted in the given facts and circumstances of the case or to ensure ends of justice or to prevent abuse of process of any Crl.M.C.No.980/2022 -:4:- Court.
8. The dispute in the above case is purely personal in nature. No public interest or harmony will be adversely affected by quashing the proceedings pursuant to Annexure 1. The offences in question do not fall within the category of offences prohibited for compounding in terms of the pronouncement of the Apex Court in Gian Singh (supra), Narinder Singh (supra) and Laxmi Narayan (supra).
For the reasons stated above, I am of the view that no purpose will be served in proceeding with the matter further. Accordingly, the Crl.M.C. is allowed. Annexure 1 Final Report in Crime No.1653/2021 of Thodupuzha Police Station now pending as C.C.No.736/2021 on the files of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Thodupuzha stands hereby quashed.
Sd/-
DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
JUDGE
kp True copy
P.A. To Judge
Crl.M.C.No.980/2022
-:5:-
APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 980/2022
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure-1 THE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CC
736/21
Annexure-2 THE AFFIDAVIT