Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH FRIDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF MARCH 2022 / 4TH CHAITHRA, 1944 CRL.MC NO. 97 OF 2021 C.C.No.1866/2016 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-IX, Ernakulam PETITIONER/ACCUSED: SABARINATHAN AGED 32 YEARS S/O K V GURUSWAMY, PARAMAKUDI THERUVU, RAMANATHAPURAM, MADURAI, TAMILNADU. BY ADV SURESH JOSEPH RESPONDENTS/STATE & DE FACTO COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN-682031. 2 CELIN PAUL, AGED 76 YEARS W/O. PAUL, KUNJUVALAPPIL HOUSE, NO. TRA 15/A, BYLINE VENNALA, EDAPPALLY SOUTH, PALARIVATTOM SOUTH, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-682025. 3 THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE PALARIVATTOM POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM-682025. R2 BY ADV SYED MUHAMMED SALIH A.N.
OTHER PRESENT: R1 & R3 BY SMT T V NEEMA -SR Public Prosecutor THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25.03.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ..2..
ORDER
This Crl.M.C. has been preferred to quash Annexure-2 Final Report in C.C.No.1866/2016 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-IX, Ernakulam 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 393 of the IPC.
4. The respondent No.2 entered appearance through counsel. An affidavit sworn in by her is also produced.
5. I have heard Sri.Suresh Joseph, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri.Syed Muhammed Salih, the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 and Smt.T.V.Neema, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor for the respondent Nos.1 and 3.
6. The averments in the petition as well as the affidavit sworn in by the respondent No.2 would show that the entire dispute between the parties has been amicably settled and the ..3..
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 by quashing the proceedings pursuant to Annexure-2 ..4..
Final Report in C.C.No.1866/2016 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-IX, Ernakulam. 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-2 Final Report in C.C.No.1866/2016 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-IX, Ernakulam stands hereby quashed.
Sd/- DR.KAUSER EDAPPAGATH, JUDGE skj ..5.. APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 97/2021 PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES ANNEXURE-1 TRUE COPY OF THE FIR DATED 14/08/2016 IN CRIME NO.1187/2016 ON THE FILE OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE'S COURT-IX AT ERNAKULAM. ANNEXURE-2 TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT DATED THE FILE OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE'S COURT-IX AT ERNAKULAM. ANNEXURE-3 THE AFFIDAVIT DATED 28/12/2020 EXECUTED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.