Stebin vs State of Kerala

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Jun 01, 2023

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1360917

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/1360917
Court: Kerala High Court
Judge: Honourable Mr.Justice K. Babu
Decided On: Jun 01, 2023
Case Number: Crl.MC/3906/2023

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Stebin

Respondent

State of Kerala

Excerpt

.....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 ..5.. [(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 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 fallwithin 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..6.. served in proceeding with the matter further. resultantly, the.....

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. 3906 OF 2023 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENTCC 2202/2021 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS , KODUNGALLUR CRIME NO.774 OF 2023 OF MATHILAKOM POLICE STATION PETITIONER/S:
1 STEBIN AGED 34 YEARS S/O DAVIS, KOONAN HOUSE, AMBAZHAKKAD DESOM, NEAR THEKKEKURISH ,KDUKKUTTI VILLAGE, THRISSUR, PIN - 680731 2 DAVIS AGED 64 YEARS S/O KOCHAPPU, KOONAN HOUSE, AMBAZHAKKAD DESOM, NEAR THEKKEKURISH ,KDUKKUTTI VILLAGE, THRISSUR-, PIN - 680731 3 SHEELA AGED 57 YEARS W/O DAVIS, KOONAN HOUSE, AMBAZHAKKAD DESOM, NEAR THEKKEKURISH ,KDUKKUTTI VILLAGE, THRISSUR, PIN - 680731 BY ADVS. P.K.VARGHESE M.T.SAMEER P.S.ANISHAD K.R.ARUN KRISHNAN DHANESH V.MADHAVAN JERRY MATHEW SOJAN K. VARGHESE REGHU SREEDHARAN APARNA ANIL RAMEEZ M. AZEEZ NAMITHA K.S. SUDARSANAN U. ANU ASHOKAN ..2..
RESPONDENT/S: 1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031 2 RIMA AGED 28 YEARS D/O JOSHI, PADAMADAN HOUSE, MATHILAKAM PALLIVALAVU DESOM, PAPPINIVATTOM VILLAGE, THRISSUR, PIN - 680685 R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI G SUDHEER R2 BY SRI R ROHITH THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01.06.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ..3..
K.BABU, J.
-------------------------------------- --------------------------------------- Dated this the 1st day of June, 2023

ORDER

The prayer in this Crl.M.C. is to quash Annexure-1 Final Report in Crime No.774 of 2021 of Mathilakom Police Station and all further proceedings in C.C.No.2202 of 2021 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kodungallur, 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 3.

3. The offences alleged against the petitioners are punishable under Sections 498-A and 406 of IPC.

4. Respondent No.2 entered appearance through counsel. An Affidavit sworn to by her has also been placed before this Court.

5. Heard Shri. P.K. Varghese, the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned counsel for respondent No. 2 ..4.. 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 of Punjab and Others [(2014) 6 SCC 466] and State of Madhya Pradesh v. Lakshmi Narayan and Others ..5.. [(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

..6.. served in proceeding with the matter further. Resultantly, the Crl.M.C is allowed. Annexure-1 Final Report in Crime No.774 of 2021 of Mathilakom Police Station and all further proceedings in C.C.No.2202 of 2021 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kodungallur, stand hereby quashed. Sd/- K.BABU, JUDGE kkj ..7.. APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 3906/2023 PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure1 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT

DATED 25.10.2021 IN C.C NO.2202/2021 ON THE FILES OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, IRINJALAKUDA WHICH ARISES FROM CRIME NO.774/2021 OF MATHILAKAM POLICE STATION, THRISSUR DISTRICT Annexure2 AFFIDAVIT SIGNED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 03.05.2023

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