Full Judgment
CRL.MC NO. 100 OF 2022 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH MONDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022 / 25TH MAGHA, 1943 CRL.MC NO. 100 OF 2022 IN CC 1100/2021 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS ,VADAKKANCHERRY PETITIONER/ACCUSED: ARUN ARAVIND AGED 32 YEARS S/O ARAVINDAN, KALLIVALAPPIL HOUSE, MINALOOR VILLAGE, ATHANI DESOM, WADAKKANCHERRY. BY ADV JITHIN BABU A RESPONDENT/S: 1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM, PIN-682031. 2 SRUTHI.K.S AGED 27 YEARS D/O SURENDRAN, KOTTINGAL HOUSE, KOTTEKKAD DESOM, KUTTUR VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN-680013. BY ADV ARUN SAMUEL SRI M P PRASANTH-PP THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14.02.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: CRL.MC NO. 100 OF 2022 2
O R D E R
This Crl.M.C. has been preferred to quash Annexure A2 Final Report in C.C No.1100/2021on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Wadakkancherry on the ground of settlement between the parties.
2. The petitioner is the accused. The 2nd respondent is the de facto complainant.
3. The offence alleged against the petitioner is under Section 354A 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.Jithin Babu.A, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri.Arun Samuel, 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 dispute CRL.MC NO. 100 OF 2022 3 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.
CRL.MC NO. 100 OF 2022 4 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 C.C No.1100/2021 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Wadakkancherry stands hereby quashed. Sd/- DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH JUDGE ab CRL.MC NO. 100 OF 2022 5 APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 100/2022 PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure A1 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR DATED 02.12.2020 IN CRIME NO.1121/2020 REGISTERED AT WADAKKANCHERRY POLICE STATION, THRISSUR DISTRICT. Annexure A2 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT DATED
20.02.2021 LAID AGAINST THE PETITIONER. IN CC NO.1100/2021 BEFORE THE HON'BLE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE'S COURT, WADAKKANCHERRY. Annexure A3 THE AFFIDAVIT DATED 29.11.2021 SWORN BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT / DE-FACTO COMPLAINANT. RESPONDENTS ANNEXURES : NIL