Praneesh vs Shobha

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Jun 30, 2023

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1366013

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/1366013
Court: Kerala High Court
Judge: Honourable Mr.Justice K. Babu
Decided On: Jun 30, 2023
Case Number: Crl.MC/4499/2023

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Praneesh

Respondent

Shobha

Excerpt

.....that the parties have arrived at a settlement in respect of the subject matter.2. the petitioner is the sole accused.3. the offences alleged against the petitioner are punishable under sections 447, 341, 323 and 354 of ipc.4. respondent no.1, the defacto complainant entered appearance through counsel. an affidavit sworn to by her has also been placed before this court.5. heard shri. zubair pulikkool, the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for respondent ..3.. no.1 and the learned public prosecutor.6. i have perused the averments in the petition and the affidavit sworn to by respondent no.1.7. 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 disputebetween 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 ..4..[(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.....

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. BABU FRIDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF JUNE 2023 / 9TH ASHADHA, 1945 CRL.MC NO. 4499 OF 2023 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENTCC 240/2019 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS ,VADAKARA CRIME NO.344 OF 2018 OF EDACHERRY POLICE STATION PETITIONER/S: PRANEESH AGED 35 YEARS S/O KUMARAN, THACHARATHU THAZHAKUNI HOUSE, ERAMALA P.O., AADHIYOORU, VADAKARA THALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT., PIN - 673541 BY ADV ZUBAIR PULIKKOOL RESPONDENT/S: 1 SHOBHA AGED 52 YEARS W/O SASI, KUNNUMMAL THAZHA HOUSE, ERAMALA P.O., AADHIYOORU, VADAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT., PIN - 673542 2 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031 R1 BY ADV K.M.RAMADAS R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI SANGEETHA RAJ THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30.06.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ..2..
K.BABU, J.
-------------------------------------- Crl.M.C.No.4499 of 2023 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 30th day of June, 2023

ORDER

The prayer in this Crl.M.C. is to quash Annexure-1 Final Report in Crime No.344 of 2018 of Edachery Police Station, and all further proceedings in CC No.240 of 2019 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Vatakara, on the ground that the parties have arrived at a settlement in respect of the subject matter.

2. The petitioner is the sole accused.

3. The offences alleged against the petitioner are punishable under Sections 447, 341, 323 and 354 of IPC.

4. Respondent No.1, the defacto complainant entered appearance through counsel. An affidavit sworn to by her has also been placed before this Court.

5. Heard Shri. Zubair Pulikkool, the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for respondent ..3.. No.1 and the learned Public Prosecutor.

6. I have perused the averments in the petition and the affidavit sworn to by respondent No.1.

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. Laxmi Narayan and Others ..4..

[(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 ..5.. served in proceeding with the matter further. Resultantly, the Crl.M.C is allowed. Annexure-1

Final Report in Crime No.344 of 2018 of Edachery Police Station, and all further proceedings in CC No.240 of 2019 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Vatakara, stand hereby quashed. Sd/- K.BABU, JUDGE kkj ..6.. APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 4499/2023 PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure1 FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO. 344/2018 OF EDACHERRY POLICE STATION DATED 10.03.2019. Annexure2 SWORN AFFIDAVIT EXECUTED BY 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 02.06.2023.

Same Court & Year Kerala · 2023 Same Parties Praneesh vs Shobha Same Judge Honourable Mr.Justice K. Babu