Hareesh vs State of Kerala

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Feb 27, 2023

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1332097

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1332097
Court: Kerala High Court
Judge: Honourable Mr.Justice K. Babu
Decided On: Feb 27, 2023
Case Number: Crl.MC/379/2023

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Hareesh

Respondent

State of Kerala

Excerpt

.....the parties have arrived at a settlement in respect of the subject matter.2. the petitioners are accused nos. 1 to 4.3. the offences alleged against the petitioners are punishable under section 498-a r/w section 34 of ipc.4. respondent no.2, the defacto complainant entered appearance through counsel. an affidavit sworn to by her has also been placed before the court.5. heard shri. m.r. sarin panicker, the learned ..4.. counsel for the petitioners, smt. greeshma shanmukhan, the learned counsel for respondent no.2 and the learned public prosecutor.6. i have perused the averments in the petition and the affidavit sworn to by respondent no.2.7. the learned public prosecutor, on instructions,submitted that the matter was enquired into through the investigating officer, who has taken statement of the defacto complainant, and it is reported that the dispute between the parties has been amicably settled. the material placed before the court shows that the entire dispute between the parties has been amicably settled and the defacto complainant has decided not to proceed further. the settlement between the parties is found to be voluntary and fair. the settlement or the compromise satisfies the conscience of the court. it is seen that the victim agreed to settle the matter with her free will.8. in gian singh v. state of punjab [2012 (4)klt 108 (sc)], narinder singh and others v. state ..5.. of punjab and others [(2014) 6 scc 466] and state of madhya pradesh v. lakshmi narayan and others [(2019) 5 scc 688] the apex court held that the high court, invoking section 482 of cr.p.c., can quash criminal proceedings in relation to non-compoundable offences, where the parties have settled the matter between themselves notwithstanding the bar under section 320 of cr.p.c., if it is warranted in the given facts and circumstances of the case, to ensure ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of any court.9. in the instant case, the dispute is purely personalin nature. there.....

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. BABU MONDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2023 / 8TH PHALGUNA, CRL.MC NO. 379 OF 2023 IN CC 220/2022 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS - I, KARUNAGAPPALLY CRIME NO.733 OF 2021 OF OCHIRA POLICE STATION PETITIONER/S: 1 HAREESH AGED 34 YEARS VADAKKE THOPPIL, AZHEEKKAL, ALAPPAD, KOLLAM -, PIN - 690525 2 JYOTHI LEKSHMI AGED 58 YEARS W/O, REGHU, VADAKKE THOPPIL, AZHEEKKAL, ALAPPAD, KOLLAM.-, PIN - 690525 3 REGHU AGED 61 YEARS S/O,YASHODHARAN,VADAKKE THOPPIL, AZHEEKKAL, ALAPPAD, KOLLAM.-, PIN - 690525 4 DEEPTHI AGED 26 YEARS D/O REGHU, VADAKKE THOPPIL, AZHEEKKAL, ALAPPAD, KOLLAM -, PIN - 60525 BY ADV M.R.SARIN
RESPONDENT/S: 1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM., PIN - 682031 2 DHARSHANA MADHU AGED 32 YEARS D/O, MADHUSOODHANAN, PUTHUMANGALATH VEEDU, ..2.. LEKSHMITHURUTHU, ALAPPAD, KOLLAM., PIN - 690525 R2 BY ADVS. S.GREESHMA SHANMUKHAN SNEHA JOY R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT MK PUSHPA LETHA THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27.02.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ..3..
K.BABU, J.
-------------------------------------- --------------------------------------- Dated this the 27th day of February, 2023

ORDER

The prayer in this Crl.M.C. is to quash Annexure -A1 FIR in Crime No.733 of 2021 of Ochira Police Station and all further proceedings in C.C.No.220 of 2022 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-1, Karunagappally, on the ground that the parties have arrived at a settlement in respect of the subject matter.

2. The petitioners are accused Nos. 1 to 4.

3. The offences alleged against the petitioners are punishable under Section 498-A r/w Section 34 of IPC.

4. Respondent No.2, the defacto complainant entered appearance through counsel. An affidavit sworn to by her has also been placed before the Court.

5. Heard Shri. M.R. Sarin Panicker, the learned ..4.. counsel for the petitioners, Smt. Greeshma Shanmukhan, the learned counsel for respondent No.2 and the learned Public Prosecutor.

6. I have perused the averments in the petition and the affidavit sworn to by respondent No.2.

7. The learned Public Prosecutor, on instructions,

submitted that the matter was enquired into through the Investigating Officer, who has taken statement of the defacto complainant, and it is reported that the dispute between the parties has been amicably settled. The material placed before the Court shows that the entire dispute between the parties has been amicably settled and the defacto complainant has decided not to proceed further. The settlement between the parties is found to be voluntary and fair. The settlement or the compromise satisfies the conscience of the Court. It is seen that the victim agreed to settle the matter with her free will.

8. In Gian Singh v. State of Punjab [2012 (4)

KLT 108 (SC)], Narinder Singh and others v. State ..5.. of Punjab and Others [(2014) 6 SCC 466] and State of Madhya Pradesh v. Lakshmi Narayan and Others [(2019) 5 SCC 688] the Apex Court held that the High Court, invoking Section 482 of Cr.P.C., can quash criminal proceedings in relation to non-compoundable offences, where the parties have settled the matter between themselves notwithstanding the bar under Section 320 of Cr.P.C., if it is warranted in the given facts and circumstances of the case, to ensure ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court.

9. In the instant case, the dispute is purely personal

in nature. There is nothing to show that public interest will be compromised by quashing the proceedings. The offences in question do not fall within the category of serious offences or heinous offences.

10. The offences in the present case do not fall

within the category of offences prohibited for granting permission to compromise in terms of the pronouncement of the Apex Court in Gian Singh (supra), Narinder ..6.. Singh (supra) and Lakshmi Narayan (supra).

11. This Court is of the view that no purpose will be

served in proceeding with the matter further. Resultantly, the Crl.M.C is allowed. Annexure-A1 FIR in Crime No.733 of 2021 of Ochira Police Station and all further proceedings in C.C.No.220 of 2022 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-1, Karunagappally,stand hereby quashed. Sd/- K.BABU, JUDGE kkj ..7.. APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 379/2023 PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure A1 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF FIR IN CRIME NO. Annexure A2 THE CERTIFIED TRUE COPY OF FINAL REPORT IN CC NO. 220/2022 IN THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT- 1 , KARUNAGAPPALLY Annexure A3 AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT

Same Court & Year Kerala · 2023 Same Parties Hareesh vs State of Kerala Same Judge Honourable Mr.Justice K. Babu