Ranjith vs State of Kerala

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided May 31, 2023

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1337920

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/1337920
Court: Kerala High Court
Judge: Honourable Mr.Justice K. Babu
Decided On: May 31, 2023
Case Number: Crl.MC/1199/2023

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Ranjith

Respondent

State of Kerala

Excerpt

.....in respect of the subject matter.2. the petitioners are accused nos.1 to 5.3. the offences alleged against the petitioners are punishable under sections 498-a and 406 read with section 34 of the indian penal code.4. respondent no.2, the defacto complainant entered appearance through counsel. an affidavit sworn to by her has also been placed before this 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, submittedthat the matter was enquired into through the investigating officer, who has taken the 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. laxmi 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.....

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. BABU WEDNESDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF MAY 2023 / 10TH JYAISHTA, 1945 CRL.MC NO. 1199 OF 2023 AGAINST CC 626/2021 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -I, PERINTHALMANNA PETITIONERS/ACCUSED:

1 RANJITH, AGED 40 YEARS, S/O. KARUNAKARAN, KANJIRATHINGAL HOUSE, 2 KARUNAKARAN, AGED 74 YEARS, S/O. KUMARAN (LATE), KANJIRATHINGAL HOUSE, 3 THANKAM, AGED 62 YEARS, W/O. KARUNAKARAN, KANJIRATHINGAL HOUSE, 4 ARUNKUMAR, AGED 34 YEARS, S/O. KARUNAKARAN, KANJIRATHINGAL HOUSE, 5 KAVITHA, AGED 42 YEARS, D/O. KARUNAKARAN, KANJIRATHINGAL HOUSE, BY ADVS. K.K.DHEERENDRAKRISHNAN N.P.ASHA

RESPONDENTS/STATE & VICTIM:

1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031 2 LISHA.K.S, AGED 38 YEARS, D/O. SREEDHARAN, SHALISH MANSION, KALAPPURAKKAL HOUSE, ANGADIPPURAM, PERINTHALMANNA. P.O., MALAPPURAM., PIN - 679322 BY ADV. SRI.N.R.SANGEETHARAJ, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.SHAJIN S.HAMEED FOR R2 THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR

ADMISSION ON 31.05.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

K.BABU, J.

-------------------------------------- --------------------------------------- Dated this the 31st day of May, 2023

ORDER

The prayer in this Crl.M.C. is to quash Annexure-I Final Report in Crime No.481/2021 of Perinthalmanna Police Station, and all further proceedings in C.C No.626/2021 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Perinthalmanna 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 5.

3. The offences alleged against the petitioners are punishable under Sections 498-A and 406 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

4. Respondent No.2, the defacto complainant entered appearance through counsel. An affidavit sworn to by her has also been placed before this 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 the 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. Laxmi 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 Laxmi 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-I Final Report in Crime No.481/2021 of Perinthalmanna Police Station, and all further proceedings in C.C No.626/2021 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Perinthalmanna stand hereby quashed. Sd/- K.BABU, JUDGE KAS APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 1199/2023 PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure-I CERTIFIED COPY OF FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO. 481/2021 OF PERINTHALMANNA POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT Annexure-II NOTARIZED AFFIDAVIT DATED 10.01.2023 SWORN BY RESPONDENT NO. 2 BEFORE THE NOTARY PUBLIC

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