Sooraj vs State of Kerala

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Feb 22, 2023

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1336027

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/1336027
Court: Kerala High Court
Judge: Honourable Mr.Justice K. Babu
Decided On: Feb 22, 2023
Case Number: Crl.MC/931/2023

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Sooraj

Respondent

State of Kerala

Excerpt

.....parties have arrived at a settlement in respect of the subject matter.2. the petitioners are the accused.3. the offences alleged against the petitioners arepunishable under sections 498a and 406 read with 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 both sides.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 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 innature. 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.....

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. BABU WEDNESDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF FEBRUARY 2023 / 3RD PHALGUNA, 1944 CRL.MC NO. 931 OF 2023 AGAINST CC 129/2019 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, PAYYOLI IN CRIME NO.531/2018 OF PAYYOLI POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.1 TO 3: 1 SOORAJ, AGED 34 YEARS, S/O SUDHAKARAN, VADAKKE PURAYIL HOUSE, 2 SUDHAKARAN, AGED 66 YEARS, S/O SUKUMARAN, VADAKKE PURAYIL HOUSE, 3 SHYAMALA, AGED 54 YEARS, W/O SUDHAKARAN, VADAKKE PURAYIL HOUSE, BY ADVS. SRI.C.BHASKARAN SRI.ARJUN C BHASKAR RESPONDENTS/STATE/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:

1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031 2 ASWANI, AGED 24 YEARS, D/O ANIKUMAR , ADUMBIL KARUVACHALIL HOUSE, ONCHIYAM AMSOM OORALUNGAL DESOM, POST-MADAPPALLY, VATAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN - 673102 BY ADV. SMT.M.K.PUSHPALATHA, PP SRI.NABIL KHADER, R2 THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON

22.02.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

K.BABU, J.

-------------------------------------- --------------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of February, 2023

ORDER

The prayer in this Crl.M.C. is to quash Annexure A2 Final Report/charge sheet in C.C.No.129/2019 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Payyoli in Crime No.531/2018 of Payyoli Police Station, Kozhikode, on the ground that the parties have arrived at a settlement in respect of the subject matter.

2. The petitioners are the accused.

3. The offences alleged against the petitioners are

punishable under Sections 498A and 406 read with 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 both sides.

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 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 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 A2 Final

Report in Crime No.531/2018 of Payyoli Police Station and all further proceedings in C.C.No.129/2019 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Payyoli stand hereby quashed.

Sd/- K.BABU JUDGE VPK APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 931/2023 PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure A1 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF FIR IN CRIME NO. 531 OF 2018 DATED 22/11/2018 OF PAYYOLI POLICE STATION. Annexure A2 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT/CHARGE IN C.C. NO. 129/2019 ON THE FILES OF JFCM COURT PAYYOLI DATED Annexure A3 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF EVIDENCE / WITNESS LIST IN C.C. NO. PAYYOLI. Annexure A4 AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 16.12.2022.

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