Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH THURSDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF MARCH 2022 / 19TH PHALGUNA, CRL.MC NO. 44 OF 2022 IN CC 308/2015 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS - I,PATHANAMTHITTA PETITIONER: AJI KUMAR, AGED 51 YEARS S/O. YESODHARAN, PLAVILA AJITH BHAVAN, PADAM, KALANJOOR VILLAGE, KALANOOR P.O., KONNY TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA-689694. BY ADV T.K.BIJU (MANJINIKARA) RESPONDENTS/STATE:
1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031. 2 THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, (CRIME NO.552/2014), KOODAL POLICE STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA-689652. 3 MANJUSHA, AGED 37 YEARS D/O. LATE DEVARAJAN, MANOJ BHAVAN, MANJALLOOR MURI, PATHANAPURAM TALUK, PATHANAPURAM POLICE STATION LIMIT, PATHANAPURAM P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT-689695. BY ADV ANNIE M.ABRAHAM SRI M P PRASANTH-PP
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10.03.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ..2..
O R D E R
Dated this the 10th day of march, 2022 This Crl.M.C. has been preferred to quash Annexure-A2 Final Report in Crime No.552/2014 of Koodal Police Station, Pathanamthitta on the ground of settlement between the parties.
2. The petitioner is the accused. The 3rd respondent is the de facto complainant.
3. The offence alleged against the petitioner is under Section 498 A of the IPC.
4. The 3rd respondent entered appearance through counsel. An affidavit sworn in by her is also produced.
5. I have heard Sri.T.K.Biju, Smt.Annie M.Abraham, the learned counsel for the 3rd respondent and Sri.M.P.Prasanth, the learned Public Prosecutor.
6. The averments in the petition as well as the ..3..
affidavit sworn in by the 3rd respondent 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 circumstances of the case or ..4.. 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-A2. The 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 further. Accordingly, the Crl.M.C. is allowed. Annexure-A2 Final Report in Crime No.552/2014 of Koodal Police Station, Pathanamthitta stands hereby quashed.
Sd/- DR.KAUSER EDAPPAGATH, JUDGE ab ..5.. APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 44/2022 PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure A1 A TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.552/2014 OF KOODAL POLICE STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA DATED 5.8.2014. Annexure A2 A TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO.552/2014 OF KOODAL POLICE STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA DATED 30.1.2015. Annexure A3 A TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 1.1.2022. RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS : NIL.