Umesh Babu vs State of Kerala

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Mar 03, 2022

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1439628

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/1439628
Court: Kerala High Court
Judge: Honourable Dr. Justice Kauser Edappagath
Decided On: Mar 03, 2022
Case Number: Crl.MC/6/2022

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Umesh Babu

Respondent

State of Kerala

Excerpt

.....and all further proceedings in c.c. no.1893/2021 on the file of the judicial 1 st class magistrate court-ii, neyyattinkara on the ground of settlement between the parties.2. the petitioners are the accused nos. 1 to 5. the 2 nd respondent is the de facto complainant and the 3 rd respondent is the injured.3. the offences alleged against the petitioners are under sections 294(b), 506 (i), 323 & 498 a r/w 34 of the ipc.4. the 2nd and 3rd respondent entered appearance through counsel. affidavits sworn in by them are also produced.5. i have heard sri.shajin.s.hameed, the learnedcounsel for the petitioners, sri.c.s. sumesh, the learned counsel for the 2nd and 3rd respondent and smt.m.k. ..4.. pushpalatha, the learned senior public prosecutor.6. the averments in the petition as well as theaffidavits sworn in by the 2nd and 3rd respondents would show that the entire dispute between the parties has been amicably settled and the de facto complainant has decided not to proceed with the crime 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 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..5.. circumstances of the case or to ensure 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 affectedby quashing the proceedings.....

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH THURSDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF MARCH 2022 / 12TH PHALGUNA, 1943 CRL.M.C.NO.06 OF 2022 (CC.NO.1893/2021 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-II, NEYYATTINKARA) PETITIONERS/A1 TO A5:

1 UMESH BABU, AGED 31 YEARS, S/O BALACHANDRAN NAIR, 'USHAS', T.C.57/337(1) MENILAM, THIRUVALLOM VILLAGE, 2 UBIN BABU, AGED 25 YEARS, S/O BALACHANDRAN NAIR, 'USHAS', T.C.57/337(1) MENILAM, THIRUVALLOM VILLAGE, 3 BALACHANDRAN NAIR @ BABU, AGED 61 YEARS, S/O NARAYANAPILLA, 'USHAS', T.C.57/337(1) MENILAM, THIRUVALLOM VILLAGE, 4 USHAKUMARI, AGED 59 YEARS, D/O DEVAKIAMMA, 'USHAS', T.C.57/337(1), MENILAM, THIRUVALLOM VILLAGE, 5 RAJESH @ KUTTAN, AGED 44 YEARS, S/O VELAYUDHAN, MANIMANGALAM HOUSE, T.C.64/1449(1), MENILAM, THIRUVALLAM VILLAGE, BY ADV SHAJIN S.HAMEED

..2.. RESPONDENTS/STATE,CW1 & CW2: 1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN-682 031. 2 RAKHI R S., AGED 26 YEARS, D/O SUDHA, RAVISUDHA, T.C.64/1558, PUNCHAKKARI, THIRUVALLOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-695 027. 3 RAVEENDRAN NAIR, AGE 68, S/O. VELAPPAN NAIR, 'RAVISUDHA', T.C.64/1558, PUNCHAKKARI, THIRUVALLOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-695 027. BY ADV C.S.SUMESH - R2, R3 SMT M K PUSHPALATHA -SR PP THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03.03.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ..3..

ORDER

This Crl.M.C. has been preferred to quash Annexure-A final report in Crime No.664/2020 of Thiruvallom Police Station and all further proceedings in C.C. No.1893/2021 on the file of the Judicial 1 st Class Magistrate Court-II, Neyyattinkara on the ground of settlement between the parties.

2. The petitioners are the accused nos. 1 to 5. The 2 nd respondent is the de facto complainant and the 3 rd respondent is the injured.

3. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 294(b), 506 (i), 323 & 498 A r/w 34 of the IPC.

4. The 2nd and 3rd respondent entered appearance through counsel. Affidavits sworn in by them are also produced.

5. I have heard Sri.Shajin.S.Hameed, the learned

counsel for the petitioners, Sri.C.S. Sumesh, the learned counsel for the 2nd and 3rd respondent and Smt.M.K. ..4.. Pushpalatha, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor.

6. The averments in the petition as well as the

affidavits sworn in by the 2nd and 3rd respondents would show that the entire dispute between the parties has been amicably settled and the de facto complainant has decided not to proceed with the crime 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 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

..5.. circumstances of the case or to ensure 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-A. The offences in question do 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 further. Accordingly, the Crl.M.C. is allowed. Annexure-A final report in Crime No.664/2020 of Thiruvallom Police Station and all further proceedings in C.C. No.1893/2021 on the file of the

Judicial 1st Class Magistrate Court-II, Neyyattinkara stands hereby quashed. Sd/- DR.KAUSER EDAPPAGATH, JUDGE ded/03.03.2022 ..6.. APPENDIX OF CRL.MC.06/2022 PETITIONER ANNEXURES : Annexure A1 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO.664/2020 OF THIRUVALLOM POLICE STATION. Annexure B PHOTOCOPY OF THE COMPROMISE PETITION

PREFERRED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER AND 2D RESPONDENT BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM IN OP NO.999/2020. Annexure C PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORIGINAL PETITION OP NO.1578/2021 PREFERRED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER AND 2ND RESPONDENT JOINTLY BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS : NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE

Same Court & Year Kerala · 2022 Same Parties Umesh Babu vs State of Kerala Same Judge Honourable Dr. Justice Kauser Edappagath