Kerala High Court
Binu Pulickakandam vs State Of Kerala on 1 July, 2022
Author: Kauser Edappagath
Bench: Kauser Edappagath
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
FRIDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF JULY 2022 / 10TH ASHADHA, 1944
CRL.MC NO. 1157 OF 2022
CC 451/2017 OF JFCM, PALA
CR.NO.1055/2017 OF PALA POLICE STATION
PETITIONER/2ND ACCUSED:
BINU PULICKAKANDAM, AGED 45 YEARS
SON OF SUKUMARAN NAIR, PULICKAKANDATHIL HOUSE,
PALA P.O., MEENACHIL VILLAGE,
KOTTAYAM DISTRICT - 686 575.
BY ADV JAI GEORGE
RESPONDENTS/STATE & PETITIONER:
1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC
PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULUM. 682
031
*2 *ADDITIONAL R2 IMPLEADED
LEENA SUNNY, W/O SUNNY THOMAS, AGED 50 YEARS,
PURAYIDATHIL HOUSE, LALAM VILLAGE, PALA, KOTTAYAM
686575
*IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 1/7/22 IN CRL.MA
NO.3/22
SMT T V NEEMA -SR PP
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 01.07.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:
Crl.M.C.No.1157/2022
-:2:-
ORDER
Dated this the 1st day of July, 2022 This Crl.M.C has been filed to quash Annexure 2 final report in Crime No.1055/2017 of Pala Police Station now pending as C.C.NO.451/2017 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Pala. During the pendency of the Crl.M.C the matter has been settled between the parties.
2. The petitioner is the accused No.2. The additional 2nd respondent is the defacto complainant.
3. The offences alleged against the petitioner are punishable under Sections 354 A(iv) of IPC, 120(o) of the Kerala Police Act and Section 4(a) of the Indecent Representation of Women Act.
4. An affidavit sworn in by the defacto complainant is produced.
5. I have heard Sri. Jai George, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt. T.V. Neema, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor.
6. The Supreme Court in Lovely Salhotra & another v. Crl.M.C.No.1157/2022 -:3:- State NCT of Delhi & another (Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.1666/2017 dated 10.4.2017) was pleased to quash the proceedings as against one of the accused alone on the ground of settlement. That was a case where the High Court refused to quash the proceedings holding that the FIR cannot be quashed in part. This Court in Sajeev & Another v. State of Kerala and another (2022 (3) KHC 69) has held that it is permissible to quash the proceedings against some of the accused alone on the ground of settlement depending on the facts and circumstances of each case.
7. The averments in the petition as well as the affidavit sworn in by the additional 2nd respondent 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 criminal proceedings 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.
Crl.M.C.No.1157/2022-:4:-
8. 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 by 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 the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of process of any Court.
9. 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 2. 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 any further. Crl.M.C.No.1157/2022 -:5:- Accordingly, the Crl.M.C. is allowed. Annexure 2 final report in Crime No.1055/2017 of Pala Police Station now pending as C.C.NO.451/2017 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Pala as against the petitioner/2 nd accused alone hereby stands quashed.
Sd/-
DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH JUDGE kp Crl.M.C.No.1157/2022 -:6:- APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 1157/2022 PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure1 COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO:1055 OF 2017 U/S. 354 A [iv] OF IPC AND SEC. 120 [O] OF THE KERALA POLICE ACT, 2011 REGISTERED BY PALA POLICE Annexure2 COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT PENDING AS C. C. NO: 451/2017 ON THE FILES OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, PALA Annexure3 COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 22.12.2020 IN CRL.M.C. NO:8259/2017 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT Annexure4 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 3.5.2021 ISSUED BY DIRECTOR OF FORENSIC SCIENCE LABORATORY THIRUVANANTHPURAM Annexure5 COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 21.12.2020 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN CRL.M.C. NO: 8324/2017 ANNEXURE A6 AFFIDAVIT DATED 31.5.22 SWORN BY THE DEFACTO COMPLAINANT.