Mithun Mohan, vs State of Kerala,

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Feb 15, 2022

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1440142

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/1440142
Court: Kerala High Court
Judge: Honourable Dr. Justice Kauser Edappagath
Decided On: Feb 15, 2022
Case Number: Crl.MC/114/2022

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Mithun Mohan,

Respondent

State of Kerala,

Excerpt

.....to quash annexure ii final report in c.c.no.742/2019 on the file of the judicial first class magistrate court i, vaikom on the ground of settlement between the parties.2. the petitioners are the accused nos.1 to 3. the 2nd respondent is the de facto complainant.3. the offences alleged against the petitioners are under sections 498(a), 323, 294(b) r/w 34 of ipc.4. the respondent no.2 entered appearance through counsel. an affidavit sworn in by her is also produced.5. i have heard sri.bobby george, the learned counsel for the petitioners, sri.k.vinod kumar, the learned counsel for the respondent no.2 and sri.m.p.prasanth, the learned public prosecutor.6. the averments in the petition as well as the affidavitsworn in by the respondent no.2 would show that the entire crl.mc no. 114 of 2022 3 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 punjaband 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 notwithstandingthe bar under s.320 of cr.p.c. if it is warranted in the given factsand 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 incrl.mc no. 114 of 2022 4 nature. no public interest or harmony will be adversely affected by quashing the proceedings pursuant to annexure ii. the offences in question do.....

Full Judgment

CRL.MC NO. 114 OF 2022 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH TUESDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022 / 26TH MAGHA, 1943 CRL.MC NO. 114 OF 2022 IN CC 742/2019 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS ,VAIKOM PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 MITHUN MOHAN, AGED 25 YEARS S/O.MOHANAN, ANIKATTIL HOUSE, THOTTUR BHAGOM, 2 MOHANAN, AGED 57 YEARS S/O.BHASKARAN, ANIKATTIL HOUSE, THOTTUR BHAGOM, 3 SHEEBA, AGED 48 YEARS W/O.MOHANAN, ANIKATTIL HOUSE, THOTTUR BHAGOM, BY ADVS. BOBBY GEORGE JOY C. PAUL RESPONDENT/S: 1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. 2 ABHIMOL.E.R., AGED 23 YEARS D/O.RAJU, EZHAPARAMBIL HOUSE, PULIYANNOOR P.O., MEENACHIL TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN-686 573. BY ADV K.VINODKUMAR SRI M P PRASANTH-PP THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15.02.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: CRL.MC NO. 114 OF 2022 2

ORDER

This Crl.M.C. has been preferred to quash Annexure II Final Report in C.C.No.742/2019 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court I, Vaikom on the ground of settlement between the parties.

2. The petitioners are the accused Nos.1 to 3. The 2nd respondent is the de facto complainant.

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

4. The respondent No.2 entered appearance through counsel. An affidavit sworn in by her is also produced.

5. I have heard Sri.Bobby George, the learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri.K.Vinod Kumar, the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 and Sri.M.P.Prasanth, the learned Public Prosecutor.

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

sworn in by the respondent No.2 would show that the entire CRL.MC NO. 114 OF 2022 3 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 Court.

8. The dispute in the above case is purely personal in

CRL.MC NO. 114 OF 2022 4 nature. No public interest or harmony will be adversely affected by quashing the proceedings pursuant to Annexure II. 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 II Final Report in C.C.No.742/2019 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court I, Vaikom stands hereby quashed. Sd/- DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH JUDGE ab CRL.MC NO. 114 OF 2022 5 APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 114/2022 PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure I THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.26=52/2019 DATED 02.03.2019 OF THALAYOLAPARAMBU POLICE STATION. Annexure II THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL

REPORT/CHARGE SHEET FILED BY THE THALAYOLAPARAMBU POLICE DATED 14.10.2019 IN THE JFCM 1 COURT, VAIKOM. Annexure III THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE COMPROMISE PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONERS AND RESPONDENT NO.2 IN OP NO.814/2019 OF FAMILY COURT, ETTUMANOOR. Annexure IV THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE DEFACTO COMPLAINANT/2ND RESPONDENT IN THE ABOVE CASE DATED 10.11.2021. RESPONDENTS ANNEXURES : NIL

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