Babu K vs State of Kerala

BABU K vs State of Kerala

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Jun 01, 2023

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1360422

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/1360422
Court: Kerala High Court
Judge: Honourable Mr.Justice K. Babu
Decided On: Jun 01, 2023
Case Number: Crl.MC/3822/2023

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

BABU K

Respondent

State of Kerala

Excerpt

.....have arrived at a settlement in respect of the subject matter.2. the petitioners are accused nos.1 and 2.3. the offences alleged against the petitioners are punishable under sections 324 and 448 r/w section 34 of ipc.4. the 2nd respondent, 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 theinvestigating 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 andfair. 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 ofpunjab 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 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.....

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. BABU THURSDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF JUNE 2023 / 11TH JYAISHTA, 1945 CRL.MC NO. 3822 OF 2023 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENTCC 217/2023 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -II,HOSDRUG PETITIONER/S: 1 BABU K AGED 52 YEARS S/O K KUNHAMBU, KAVUMTHATTUMMAL HOUSE, KAKKAT, MADIKAI VILLAGE, NEELESWARAM, KASARAGOD, PIN - 671314 2 PRIKESH V.V AGED 29 YEARS S/O BABU K, KAVUMTHATTUMMAL HOUSE, KAKKAT, MADIKAI VILLAGE, NEELESWARAM, KASARAGOD, PIN - 671314 BY ADVS. P.K.SUBHASH RAVEENA K.R. DANIC ANTONY RESPONDENT/S: 1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031 2 SAROJINI A.V AGED 68 YEARS W/O LATE AMBADI, THUNDATHIL HOUSE, BANGALAM, KARICHERI, MADIKAI VILLAGE, KASARAGOD DISTRICT, PIN - 671314 BY ADV PUBLIC PROSECUTOR OTHER PRESENT: PP SMT PUSHPALATHA M K THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01.06.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
K.BABU, J.
-------------------------------------- --------------------------------------- Dated this the 1st day of June, 2023

ORDER

The prayer in this Crl.M.C. is to quash Annexure A1 Final Report in Crime No.734/2022 of Neeleswaram Police Station, Kasaragode and all further proceedings in C.C.No. 217/2023 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Hosdurg, on the ground that the parties have arrived at a settlement in respect of the subject matter.

2. The petitioners are accused Nos.1 and 2.

3. The offences alleged against the petitioners are punishable under Sections 324 and 448 r/w Section 34 of IPC.

4. The 2nd respondent, 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 A1 Final

Report in Crime No.734/2022 of Neeleswaram Police Station, Kasaragode and all further proceedings in C.C.No. 217/2023 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Hosdurg, stand hereby quashed. Sd/- K.BABU, JUDGE SM APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 3822/2023 PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure A1 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO.734 OF 2022 OF NEELESWARAM POLICE STATION, KASARAGOD DISTRICT Annexure A2 AFFIDAVIT SWORN TO BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT

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