Binu., vs State of Kerala

BINU., vs State of Kerala

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Feb 24, 2022

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1440095

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/1440095
Court: Kerala High Court
Judge: Honourable Dr. Justice Kauser Edappagath
Decided On: Feb 24, 2022
Case Number: Crl.MC/57/2022

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

BINU.,

Respondent

State of Kerala

Excerpt

.....police station and further proceedings in s.c.no.241/2012 on the files of the assistant sessions court, attingal on the ground of settlement between the parties.2. the petitioners are the accused nos. 1 to 4. the 3 rd respondent is the defacto complainant and the 4 th respondent is the injured.3. the offences alleged against the petitioners are under sections 294(b), 323, 324, 326, 308 and 34 of ipc4. the respondent nos. 3 and 4 entered appearance through counsel. affidavits sworn in by them are also produced.5. i have heard sri. ajayakumar, the learned counsel for the petitioners, sri. c.r. biju kumar, the learned counsel for the respondent nos. 3 and 4 and smt. t.v. neema the learned senior public prosecutor. -:4:-6. the averments in the petition as well as the affidavitsworn in by the respondent nos. 3 and 4 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 to ensure ends of justice or to prevent abuse of process of any-:5:- court.8. the dispute in the above case is purely personal innature. no public interest or harmony will be adversely affected by quashing the proceedings pursuant to.....

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH THURSDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022 / 5TH PHALGUNA, 1943 CRL.MC NO. 57 OF 2022 CRIME NO.279/2011 OF Kazhakkuttom Police Station, AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN SC 241/2012 OF PRINCIPAL SUB COURT,ATTINGAL PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 TO 4:

1 BINU., AGED 30 YEARS,S/O. THULASI, PULIVILAKATHU VEETIL, BPCL, MENAMKULAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 582. 2 SIJI, AGED 29 YEARS,S/O. THULASI, PULIVILAKATHU VEETIL, BPCL MENAMKULAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 582. 3 DEEPU, AGED 29 YEARS,S/O. BABY, DEEPU NIVAS, THETTIKKULAM ROAD, VADASSERIKKONAM, CHERANNIYOOR VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 142. 4 RAHUL CHANDRAN, AGED 29 YEARS S/O. CHANDRAN ASARI, REMYABHAVAN, VILAYIL KULAM, MENAMKULAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 582. BY ADVS. AJAYA KUMAR. G M.JAYAKRISHNAN

RESPONDENTS/STATE/COMPLAINANT CW1/CW2

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM 682 031. -:2:- 2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER, KAZHAKOOTAM POLICE STATION, KAZHAKOOTAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT 695 582. 3 SUKUMARI, AGED 64 YEARS W/O. VIKRAMAN NAIR, VADIYIL VEEDU, MENAMKULAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 582. 4 GOPALAKRISHNAN @ MANIYAN, AGED 60 YEARS, S/O. KUTTANPILLAI, VADIYIL VEEDU, MENAMKULAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 582. BY ADV C.R.BIJU KUMAR R3 & 4 SMT. T.V. NEEMA, SR. PP

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24.02.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: -:3:-

ORDER

Dated this the 24th day of February, 2022 This Crl.M.C. has been preferred to quash Annexure A1 Final Report in Crime No.279/2011 of Kazhakootam Police Station and further proceedings in S.C.No.241/2012 on the files of the Assistant Sessions Court, Attingal on the ground of settlement between the parties.

2. The petitioners are the accused Nos. 1 to 4. The 3 rd respondent is the defacto complainant and the 4 th respondent is the injured.

3. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 294(b), 323, 324, 326, 308 and 34 of IPC

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

5. I have heard Sri. Ajayakumar, the learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri. C.R. Biju Kumar, the learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 and Smt. T.V. Neema the learned Senior Public Prosecutor. -:4:-

6. The averments in the petition as well as the affidavit

sworn in by the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 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 to ensure ends of justice or to prevent abuse of process of any

-:5:- 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 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 A1 Final Report in Crime No.279/2011 of Kazhakootam Police Station and further proceedings in S.C.No.241/2012 on the files of the Assistant Sessions Court, Attingal stands hereby quashed.

Sd/- DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH JUDGE kp True copy P.A. To Judge -:6:- APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 57/2022 PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure A1 TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO. 279/2011 KAZHAKOOTAM POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. Annexure A2 A NOTARIZED AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. Annexure A3 A NOTARIZED AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.

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