Sreejith @Sreejith Radhakrishnan vs State of Kerala

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Jan 13, 2023

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1406698

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/1406698
Court: Kerala High Court
Judge: Honourable Dr. Justice Kauser Edappagath
Decided On: Jan 13, 2023
Case Number: Crl.MC/9044/2022

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Sreejith @Sreejith Radhakrishnan

Respondent

State of Kerala

Excerpt

.....to quash annexure a1 final report in c.c.no.144/2020 on the file of the judicial first class magistrate court-ii, aluva on the ground of settlement between the parties.2. the petitioners are the accused nos. 1 to 5. the 2 nd respondent is the defacto complainant.3. the offence alleged against the petitioners is punishable under section 498a of ipc.4. the respondent no.2 entered appearance through counsel. an affidavit sworn in by her is also produced.5. i have heard sri. t.b. shajimon, the learned counsel for the petitioners, sri. s. gopakumar, the learned counsel for the respondent no.2 and sri. p.g. manu, the learned senior public prosecutor.6. the averments in the petition as well as the affidavit sworn in by the respondent no.2 would show that the entire dispute between the parties has been amicably settled and the -:4:- de facto complainant has decided not to proceed with thecriminal proceedings further. the learned prosecutor, on instruction, submits that the matter was enquired into through the investigating officer and a statement of the de facto complainant was also recorded wherein she reported that the matter was amicably settled.7. the apex court 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 in state of madhya pradesh v. laxmi narayan and others [(2019) 5 scc 688] has held that the high court by invoking s.482 of cr.p.c can quash criminal proceedings in relation to non compoundable offence where the parties have settled the matter between themselves notwithstanding the bar under s.320 of cr.p.c. if it is warranted in the given facts and circumstances of the case or to ensure the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of process of any court.8. the dispute in the above case is purely personal in nature. no public interest or harmony will be adversely affected by quashing the proceedings pursuant to annexure a1. the -:5:-offence in question does not fall within the.....

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH FRIDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF JANUARY 2023 / 23RD POUSHA, 1944 CRL.MC NO. 9044 OF 2022 CRIME NO.501/2019 OF ALUVA WEST POLICE STATION (ALANGAD), Ernakulam CC 144/2020 OF JFCM-II, ALUVA PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
1 SREEJITH @SREEJITH RADHAKRISHNAN AGED 33 YEARS, S/O S. RADHAKRISHNAN, AISWARYA, S.NALUVAZHY, N.PARAVOOR, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683513 2 RADHAKRISHNAN @SANKARA PILLAI RADHAKRISHNAN AGED 64 YEARS, AISWARYA, S.NALUVAZHY, N.PARAVOOR, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683513 3 JAYALAKSHMI @JAYALAKSHMI RADHAKRISHNAN AGED 60 YEARS, W/O S. RADHAKRISHNAN, AISWARYA, S.NALUVAZHY, N.PARAVOOR, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683513 4 JAYASH @ JAYASH RADHAKRISHNAN AGED 38 YEARS S/O S.RADHAKRISHNAN, AISWARYA, S.NALUVAZHY, N.PARAVOOR, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683513 5 NITYA @ NITYA KUNDOOR AGED 36 YEARS, W/O. JAYASH RADHAKRISHNAN AISWARYA, S.NALUVAZHY, N.PARAVOOR, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683513 BY ADVS. T.B.SHAJIMON GOVINDU P.RENUKADEVI -:2:-
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT/STATE: 1 STATE OF KERALA REP RESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031 2 SHRUTHI KRISHNA AGED 33 YEARS W/O. SREEJITH RADHAKRISHNAN, SRI KRIPA, MANAKKAPADY, KARUMALLOOR PO, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683511 BY ADVS. S GOPAKUMAR SANTOSH DANIEL S(K/1175/2020) T.M.BINITHA(K/000206/2006) SRI. P.G. MANU, SR. PP THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13.01.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: -:3:-

ORDER

Dated this the 13th day of January, 2023 This Crl.M.C. has been preferred to quash Annexure A1 Final Report in C.C.No.144/2020 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Aluva on the ground of settlement between the parties.

2. The petitioners are the accused Nos. 1 to 5. The 2 nd respondent is the defacto complainant.

3. The offence alleged against the petitioners is punishable under Section 498A of IPC.

4. The respondent No.2 entered appearance through counsel. An affidavit sworn in by her is also produced.

5. I have heard Sri. T.B. Shajimon, the learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri. S. Gopakumar, the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 and Sri. P.G. Manu, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor.

6. The averments in the petition as well as the affidavit sworn in by the respondent No.2 would show that the entire dispute between the parties has been amicably settled and the -:4:- de facto complainant has decided not to proceed with the

criminal proceedings further. The learned Prosecutor, on instruction, submits that the matter was enquired into through the investigating officer and a statement of the de facto complainant was also recorded wherein she reported that the matter was amicably settled.

7. The Apex Court 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 in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan and Others [(2019) 5 SCC 688] has held that the High Court by invoking S.482 of Cr.P.C can quash criminal proceedings in relation to non compoundable offence where the parties have settled the matter between themselves notwithstanding the bar under S.320 of Cr.P.C. if it is warranted in the given facts and circumstances of the case or to ensure the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of process of any Court.

8. The dispute in the above case is purely personal in nature. No public interest or harmony will be adversely affected by quashing the proceedings pursuant to Annexure A1. The -:5:-

offence in question does not fall within the category of offences prohibited for compounding in terms of the pronouncement of the Apex Court in Gian Singh (supra), Narinder Singh (supra) and Laxmi Narayan (supra). For the reasons stated above, I am of the view that no purpose will be served in proceeding with the matter any further. Accordingly, the Crl.M.C. is allowed. Annexure A1 Final Report in C.C.No.144/2020 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Aluva hereby stands quashed. Sd/- DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH JUDGE kp -:6:- APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 9044/2022 PETITIONER ANNEXURES

Annexure A1            CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT
Annexure A2            COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT
Annexure A3            COPY OF THE MEDIATION AGREEMENT

Same Court & Year Kerala · 2023 Same Parties Sreejith @Sreejith Radhakrishnan vs State of Kerala Same Judge Honourable Dr. Justice Kauser Edappagath