Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF MARCH 2022 / 25TH PHALGUNA, 1943 CRL.MC NO. 94 OF 2022 CRIME NO.2687/2016 OF Angamali Police Station, Ernakulam AGAINST CC 169/2017 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGIST. COURT, ANGAMALY(TEMPORARY) PETITIONER/ACCUSED: ANTONY, AGED 62 YEARS,S/O.CHUMMAR, CHITTINAPILLY VEEDU, THERATTAKARA, KARUKUTTI VILLAGE, ANGAMALY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 683 576. BY ADV RANJIT BABU RESPONDENTS/STATE & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682 031. 2 THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ANGAMALY POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 683 572. 3 SHERIN @ SHREYA, AGED 28 YEARS D/O.MUBARAK, PAINGOTTU ALAPPATTU VEEDU, POONEKKARA, EDAPPALLY NORTH VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682 024. BY ADVS. Jino Jose Kallarackal BLAISE JOSEPH(K/2023/2019) SRI.M.P.PRASANTH, PP THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 16.03.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: -:2:-
ORDER
Dated this the 16th day of March, 2022 This Crl.M.C. has been preferred to quash Annexure 2 Final Report in C.C.No.169/2017 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Angamaly on the ground of settlement between the parties.
2. The petitioner is the accused. The 3 rd respondent is the defacto complainant.
3. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 447, 294(b), 506(i), 354 A (i)(iv) of IPC.
4. The respondent No.3 entered appearance through counsel. An affidavit sworn in by her is also produced.
5. I have heard Sri. Ranjith Babu, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri. Jino Jose, the learned counsel for the respondent No.3 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.3 would show that the entire -: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 nature. No public interest or harmony will be adversely affected -:4:-
by quashing the proceedings pursuant to Annexure 2. 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 2 Final Report in C.C.No.169/2017 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Angamaly stands hereby quashed. Sd/- DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH JUDGE kp True copy P.A. To Judge -:5:- APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 94/2022 PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure 1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.2686/2016 OF ANGAMALY POLICE STATION. Annexure 2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO.2687/2016 OF ANGAMALY POLICE STATION NOW RENUMBERED AS C.C.NO.169/2017 ON THE FILE OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, ANGAMALY. Annexure 3 THE AFFIDAVIT DATED 21/12/2021 EXECUTED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.