Gladson vs State of Kerala

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Jan 31, 2023

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1384122

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/1384122
Court: Kerala High Court
Judge: Honourable Mr.Justice K. Babu
Decided On: Jan 31, 2023
Case Number: Crl.MC/6104/2022

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Gladson

Respondent

State of Kerala

Excerpt

.....ground that the parties have arrived at a settlement in respect of the subject matter.2. the petitioner is accused no1.3. the offences alleged against the petitioner are punishable under sections 498a, 406 and 34 of ipc.4. respondent no.3, the defacto complainant, entered appearance through counsel. an affidavit sworn to by her has also been placed before the court.5. heard sri.polly m.j., the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for respondent no.2 and ..3.. the learned public prosecutor.6. i have perused the averments in the petition and the affidavit sworn to by respondent no.3.7. 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. lakshmi 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 TUESDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF JANUARY 2023 / 11TH MAGHA, 1944 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENTCC 2724/2014 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -III,THRISSUR CRIME NO.750 OF 2014 OF OLLUR POLICE STATION PETITIONER/S: GLADSON AGED 45 YEARS SON OF JOHNSON, KUTTIKKADAN HOUSE, L/43, FIRST STAGE, KUVEMBU NAGAR, MYSORE CORPORATION, KARNATAKA STATE, PIN - 570023 BY ADV M.J.POLLY RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, PIN - 682031 2 INSPECTOR OF POLICE, OLLUR POLICE STATION INSPECTOR OF POLICE, OLLUR POLICE STATION, PIN - 680360 3 LOVELY AGED 38 YEARS LOVELY, 38 YEARS, D/O SUNNY, CHIRAMEL HOUSE, ST. THOMAS STREET, KURIACHIRA DESOM, VILLAGE &P.O, THRISSUR TALUK THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - OTHER PRESENT: G SUDHEER PP THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31.01.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ..2..
K.BABU, J.
-------------------------------------- Crl.M.C.No.6104 of 2022 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 31st day of January, 2023

ORDER

The prayer in this Crl.M.C. is to quash all further proceedings in C.C.No.2724/2014 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-III, Thrissur, on the ground that the parties have arrived at a settlement in respect of the subject matter.

2. The petitioner is accused No1.

3. The offences alleged against the petitioner are punishable under Sections 498A, 406 and 34 of IPC.

4. Respondent No.3, the defacto complainant, entered appearance through counsel. An affidavit sworn to by her has also been placed before the Court.

5. Heard Sri.Polly M.J., the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for respondent No.2 and ..3.. the learned Public Prosecutor.

6. I have perused the averments in the petition and the affidavit sworn to by respondent No.3.

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 ..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 Lakshmi 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-III

Final Report in Crime No.750 of 2014 of Ollur Police Station and all further proceedings in C.C.No.2724/2014 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-III, Thrissur, stand hereby quashed.

Sd/- K.BABU, JUDGE kkj ..6.. CRL.MC 6104/2022 PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure1 NOTARISED AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE DEFACTO COMPLAINANT Annexure2 QUASHED ORDER OF THE ACCUSED NO. 2 AND 3 OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT IN CRL. M.C 602/2016 DATED 10-11-2016 Annexure3 FIR AND FI STATEMENT IN CRIME NO. Annexure4 CHARGECOPY AND WITNESS LIST IN CRIME NO. 750/2014 OF OLLUR POLICE STATION

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