Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 8, Cited by 0]

Kerala High Court

Sreejith Alias Kochumon vs State Of Kerala on 7 April, 2022

Author: Kauser Edappagath

Bench: Kauser Edappagath

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                             PRESENT
           THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
  THURSDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF APRIL 2022 / 17TH CHAITHRA, 1944
                     CRL.MC NO. 1193 OF 2022
     CRIME NO.336/2020 OF Mangalapuram Police Station,
        CC 1925/2020 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS
                           -II,ATTINGAL
PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 TO 3:

    1       SREEJITH ALIAS KOCHUMON
            AGED 28 YEARS
            SON OF RAJENDRAN,
            KARAYADIYIL PUTHUVAL VEEDU, NEAR CRP CAMP,
            PALLIPPURAM, PALLIPPURAM VILLAGE,
            THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695316

    2       SHANUMON
            AGED 30 YEARS
            SON OF SASI,
            SREEPADAM HARIJAN COLONY, NEAR CRP CAMP,
            PALLIPPURAM, PALLIPPURAM VILLAGE,
            THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695316

    3       RAJENDRAN
            AGED 52 YEARS
            SON OF GOPI,
            KARAYADIYIL VEEDU, NEAR CRP CAMP,
            PALLIPPURAM, PALLIPPURAM VILLAGE,
            THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695316

            BY ADV M.ABDUL RASHEED



RESPONDENTS/STATE, DEFACTO COMPLAINANT & INVESTIGATING
OFFICER:
 Crl.M.C.No.1193/2022

                                 -:2:-

     1     STATE OF KERALA
           REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
           HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN 682 031
           ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031

     2     SHEEJA
           AGED 31 YEARS
           DAUGHTER OF USHA,
           KUZHIYALAKAL VEEDU, NEAR CRP CAMP,
           PALLIPPURAM, PALLIPPURAM P O,
           THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695316

     3     STATION HOUSE OFFICER
           MANGALAPURAM POLICE STATION, MANGALAPURAM P O,
           THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN 695317


           BY ADVS.
           SMT. T.V. NEEMA, SR. PP
           K.NIRMALAN




      THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON   07.04.2022,   THE   COURT    ON     THE   SAME   DAY   PASSED   THE
FOLLOWING:
 Crl.M.C.No.1193/2022

                                -:3:-



                               ORDER

Dated this the 7th day of April, 2022 This Crl.M.C. has been preferred to quash Annexure A1 Final Report in C.C.No.1925/2020 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Attingal 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 341, 323, 354 and 34 of IPC.

4. The respondent No.2 entered appearance through counsel. An affidavit sworn in by her is also produced.

5. I have heard Sri. M. Abdul Rasheed the learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri. K. Nirmalan, the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 and Smt. T.V. Neema, the 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 Crl.M.C.No.1193/2022 -:4:- 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 Court.

8. The dispute in the above case is purely personal in nature. No public interest or harmony will be adversely affected Crl.M.C.No.1193/2022 -:5:- by quashing the proceedings pursuant to Annexure A1. 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 A1 Final Report in C.C.No.1925/2020 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Attingal stands hereby quashed.

Sd/-

                                      DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
                                               JUDGE
kp                     True copy
                          P.A. To Judge
 Crl.M.C.No.1193/2022

                               -:6:-

                  APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 1193/2022

PETITIONER ANNEXURES

Annexure A1            CERTIFIED COPY OF THE CHARGE SHEET IN
                       C.C. NO.1925/2020 ON THE FILE OF

JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-

II, ATTINGAL WHICH AROSE FROM CRIME NO.336/2020 OF MANGALAPURAM POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT Annexure A2 ORIGINAL AFFIDAVIT SIGNED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 10.12.2021