Sarath vs State of Kerala

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Jan 31, 2023

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1404528

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/1404528
Court: Kerala High Court
Judge: Honourable Mr.Justice K. Babu
Decided On: Jan 31, 2023
Case Number: Crl.MC/8761/2022

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Sarath

Respondent

State of Kerala

Excerpt

.....who has taken statement of the victim, 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 [(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 thecategory 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 served in proceeding with the matter further. resultantly, the crl.m.c is allowed. annexure a2 finalreport in crime no.1038/2018 of pandalam police station and all further proceedings in c.c.no.564/2019 on the file of the judicial first class magistrate court, adoor, stand hereby quashed.sd/-.....

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 CRL.MC NO. 8761 OF 2022 AGAINST CC 564/2019 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS , ADOOR IN CRIME NO.1038/2018 OF PANDALAM POLICE STATION PETITIONERS/ACCUSED:

1 SARATH, AGED 30 YEARS, S/O. SASI KUMAR, RESMI BHAVAN,ULLANNOOR P.O., KULANADA VILLAGE, PANDALAM PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN - 689503 2 RADHA DEVI AMMA, AGED 56 YEARS, W/O SASI KUMAR , RESMI BHAVAN ,ULLANNOOR P.O., KULANADA VILLAGE ,PANDALAM PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN - 689503 3 RESMI S., AGED 34 YEARS, W/O VINOD KUMAR , RESMI BHAVAN ULLANNOOR P.O., KULANADA VILLAGE ,PANDALAM PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN - 689545 4 RATHI DEVI R., W/O VIJAYAKUMARAN NAIR K. S., KAITHAMANNIL HOUSE KUMBAZHA P.O., THUNDAMON KARA, PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN - 689653 BY ADV. SRI. T.K.BIJU (MANJINIKARA)

RESPONDENTS/STATE & COMPLAINANT: 1 STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031 2 SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, [CRIME NO.1038/2018], PANDALM POLICE STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN - 689501 3 ANJALI RAJ, AGED 23 YEARS, W/O. SARATH, VISHNU BHAVAN THAZHAM P.O , NALLOOR ,MALAYALAPPUZHA VILLAGE, KONNY TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN - 689666 BY ADVS. SRI.SHAHIM BIN AZIZ SMT.ANNIE M.ABRAHAM(K/000869/1995) SRI.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:

K.BABU, J.

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

ORDER

The prayer in this Crl.M.C. is to quash Annexure A2 Final Report in Crime No.1038/2018 of Pandalam Police Station and all further proceedings in C.C.No.564/2019 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Adoor, 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 4.

3. The offences alleged against the petitioners iare punishable under Section 498-A and 34 of IPC.

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

5. Heard both sides.

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 victim, 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 [(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 served in proceeding with the matter further. Resultantly, the Crl.M.C is allowed. Annexure A2 Final

Report in Crime No.1038/2018 of Pandalam Police Station and all further proceedings in C.C.No.564/2019 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Adoor, stand hereby quashed.

Sd/- K.BABU JUDGE VPK APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 8761/2022 PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure-A1 A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO. 1038/2018 OF PANDALAM POLICE STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT DATED Annexure-A2 A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO. 1038/2018 PANDALAM POLICE STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT]DATED Annexure-A3 A TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 08/11/2022 Annexure -A4 THE SETTLEMENT AFFIDAVIT OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 4/01/2023

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