Manu vs State of Kerala

MANU vs State of Kerala

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Jan 31, 2023

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1412243

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/1412243
Court: Kerala High Court
Judge: Honourable Mr.Justice K. Babu
Decided On: Jan 31, 2023
Case Number: Crl.MC/9686/2022

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

MANU

Respondent

State of Kerala

Excerpt

.....the parties have arrived at a settlement in respect of the subject matter.2. the petitioners are accused nos. 1 and 2.3. the offences alleged against the petitioners are punishable under sections 498a, 323 and 324 of ipc.4. respondent no.2, the defacto complainant, entered appearance through counsel. an affidavit sworn to by her has also been placed before the court.5. heard sri.rekesh the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned counsel for respondent no.2 and ..4.. the learned public prosecutor.6. i have perused the averments in the petition and the affidavit sworn to by respondent no.2.7. 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 ..5..[(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 interest.....

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 CC 7611/2022 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -III,NEYYATTINKARA CRIME NO.615/2022 OF MARAYAMUTTAM POLICE STATION PETITIONER/S: 1 MANU AGED 33 YEARS S/O. MANOHARAN, VATHIKALA, THALIYOOR, MARAYAMUTTAM, PERUMKADAVILA, TRIVANDRUM, PIN - 695124 2 PREMA AGED 55 YEARS W/O. MANOHARAN, VATHIKALA, THALIYOOR, MARAYAMUTTAM, PERUMKADAVILA, TRIVANDRUM, PIN - 695124 BY ADVS. V.R.REKESH ADARSH S.S RESPONDENTS/ STATE AND DEFACTO COMPLAINANT: 1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031 2 SARANYA VINCENT AGED 30 YEARS D/O RADHA, AMACHAL,KULATHUMMAL, TRIVANDRUM, PIN - 695572 R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR UNNIKRISHNAN R. G SUDHEER THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31.01.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED ..2.. THE FOLLOWING: ..3..
K.BABU, J.
-------------------------------------- Crl.M.C.No.9686 of 2022 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 31st day of January, 2023

ORDER

The prayer in this Crl.M.C. is to quash Annexure-A1 Final Report in Crime No.615/2022 of Marayamuttam Police Station, pending before the Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class-III, Neyyattinkara in CC No.7611/2022, on the ground that the parties have arrived at a settlement in respect of the subject matter.

2. The petitioners are accused Nos. 1 and 2.

3. The offences alleged against the petitioners are punishable under Sections 498A, 323 and 324 of IPC.

4. Respondent No.2, the defacto complainant, entered appearance through counsel. An affidavit sworn to by her has also been placed before the Court.

5. Heard Sri.Rekesh the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned counsel for respondent No.2 and ..4.. the learned Public Prosecutor.

6. I have perused the averments in the petition and the affidavit sworn to by respondent No.2.

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 ..5..

[(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 ..6.. served in proceeding with the matter further. Resultantly, the Crl.M.C is allowed. Annexure-A1 Final Report in Crime No.615/2022 of Marayamuttam Police Station, pending before the Court of Judicial

Magistrate of First Class-III, Neyyattinkara, in CC No.7611/2022 stands hereby quashed. Sd/- K.BABU, JUDGE kkj ..7.. APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 9686/2022 PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure-A1 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT DATED 26-10-2022 SUBMITTED BEFORE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE-III, NEYYATINKARA Annexure- A2 TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE DEFACTO COMPLAINANT DATED 7-12-2022

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