Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Prakash vs Saritha

Prakash vs Saritha

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Jan 31, 2023
~4 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1411146

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

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Kerala High Court
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
Crl.MC/9555/2022

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Prakash

Respondent

Saritha

Excerpt

.....v. lakshmi narayan and others [(2019) 5 scc 688] the apex court held that the high court, invoking section 482 of cr.p.c., canquash 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-a3 final reportin crime no.1025/2021 of nedumbassery airport police station and all further proceedings in c.c.no.458/2022 on the file of the judicial first class magistrate court, angamaly, stand hereby quashed. sd/- k.babu judge vpk appendix of crl.mc 9555/2022 petitioner annexures annexure a1 certified copy of the f.i.r and f.i. statement in crime 1025/2021 of nedumbassery police station now pending as final report in c.c.no.458/2022 on the files of the judicial first class magistrate court, angamaly annexure a2 section alteration report annexure a3 certified copy of the final report and documents in c.c.no.458/2022 on the files of the judicial first class magistrate court, angamaly annexure a4 affidavit filed by the 1st respondent annexure a5 affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent

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. 9555 OF 2022 CC 458/2022 OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, ANGAMALY IN CRIME NO.1025/2021 OF NEDUMBDASSERY POLICE STATION PETITIONER/ACCUSED: PRAKASH, AGED 41 YEARS, VATTATHOTTATHIL HOUSE, THIDANAD, ERATTUPETTA, KOTTAYAM NOW RESIDING AT MEPPILLY HOUSE,PIRAROOR P.O, KALADY, PIN- 683 574., PIN - 683574 BY ADV SRI.P.M.ARUN DAS RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANTS/STATE:

1 SARITHA, AGED 37 YEARS, MEPPILLY HOUSE, PIRAROOR P.O, KALADY, PIN- 683 574. 2 LEELA, AGED 60 YEARS, MEPPILLY HOUSE,PIRAROOR P.O,KALADY, PIN- 683 574. 3 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031 BY ADVS SRI.BIBIN VARGHESE SMT.M K PUSHPA LETHA,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-A3 Final Report in Crime No.1025/2021 of Nedumbassery Airport Police Station and all further proceedings in C.C.No.458/2022 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Angamaly, 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 498A and 323 of IPC.

4. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 entered appearance through counsel. Affidavits sworn to by them have also been placed before the Court.

5. Heard both sides.

6. I have perused the averments in the petition and the affidavits sworn to by respondent Nos.1 and 2.

7. The learned Public Prosecutor, on instructions, submitted that the matter was enquired into through the Investigating Officer, who has taken statements of the victims, 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 victims have 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 victims agreed to settle the matter with their 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-A3 Final Report

in Crime No.1025/2021 of Nedumbassery Airport Police Station and all further proceedings in C.C.No.458/2022 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Angamaly, stand hereby quashed. Sd/- K.BABU JUDGE VPK APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 9555/2022 PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure A1 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE F.I.R AND F.I. STATEMENT IN CRIME 1025/2021 OF NEDUMBASSERY POLICE STATION NOW PENDING AS FINAL REPORT IN C.C.NO.458/2022 ON THE FILES OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, ANGAMALY Annexure A2 SECTION ALTERATION REPORT Annexure A3 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT AND DOCUMENTS IN C.C.NO.458/2022 ON THE FILES OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, ANGAMALY Annexure A4 AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT Annexure A5 AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial