Krishna Kumar @ Rajesh vs State of Kerala

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Mar 03, 2022

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1441034

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/1441034
Court: Kerala High Court
Judge: Honourable Dr. Justice Kauser Edappagath
Decided On: Mar 03, 2022
Case Number: Crl.MC/145/2022

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Krishna Kumar @ Rajesh

Respondent

State of Kerala

Excerpt

.......2..orderthis crl.m.c. has been preferred to quash annexure a2 final report in crime no.1475/2018 of kanjirappally police station on the ground of settlement between the parties.2. the petitioner is the accused. the 3 rd respondent is the de facto complainant.3. the offence alleged against the petitioner is under section 67 of the it act.4. the respondent no.3 entered appearance through counsel. an affidavit sworn in by her is also produced.5. i have heard sri.k.shaj, the learned counsel for thepetitioner, sri.saji joseph, the learned counsel for the respondent no.3 and smt.t.v.neema, the learned senior public prosecutor for the respondent nos.1 and 2.6. the averments in the petition as well as in theaffidavit sworn in by the respondent no.3 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, ..3.. 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 innature. no public interest or harmony will be adversely affected by quashing the proceedings pursuant to annexure a2 final report in crime no.1475/2018 of kanjirappally police.....

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH THURSDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF MARCH 2022 / 12TH PHALGUNA, 1943 CRL.MC NO. 145 OF 2022 Crime No.1475/2018 of Kanjirappally Police Station C.C.No.528/2021 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Kanjirappally PETITIONER: KRISHNA KUMAR @ RAJESH, AGED 50 YEARS,POORNIMA HOUSE, THAMBALAKKADA P.O., KANJIRAPALLY, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686506 BY ADVS. K.SHAJ MAJID MUHAMMED K. GAYATHRI SATHYAN C.IJLAL RESHMA.P. JOSEPH MARY DAS ARUN CHAND VINAYAK G MENON BHARAT VIJAY P. RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031 2 SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE KANJIRAPALLY POLICE STATION, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT PIN - 686555 3 SEEJA SHIBU AGED 42 YEARS, NARIYANANICKAL HOUSE, PALLIPADI BHAGOM, THAMBALAKAD P.O., THAMBALAKAD KARA, KANJIRAPALLY VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT PIN - 686506 R3 BY SRI.SAJI JOSEPH R1 & R2 BY SMT T V NEEMA -SR Public Prosecutor THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 03.03.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ..2..

ORDER

This Crl.M.C. has been preferred to quash Annexure A2 Final Report in Crime No.1475/2018 of Kanjirappally Police Station on the ground of settlement between the parties.

2. The petitioner is the accused. The 3 rd respondent is the de facto complainant.

3. The offence alleged against the petitioner is under Section 67 of the IT Act.

4. The respondent No.3 entered appearance through counsel. An affidavit sworn in by her is also produced.

5. I have heard Sri.K.Shaj, the learned counsel for the

petitioner, Sri.Saji Joseph, the learned counsel for the respondent No.3 and Smt.T.V.Neema, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor for the respondent Nos.1 and 2.

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

affidavit sworn in by the respondent No.3 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, ..3.. 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 A2 Final Report in Crime No.1475/2018 of Kanjirappally Police Station. The offence in question does not fall within the ..4.. 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 Crime No.1475/2018 of Kanjirappally Police Station stands hereby quashed. Sd/- DR.KAUSER EDAPPAGATH, JUDGE skj ..5.. APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 145/2022 PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES Annexure A1 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO. 1475/2018 OF KANJIRAPALLY POLICE STATION, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT Annexure A2 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF FINAL REPORT

DATED 05/05/2021 IN ANNEXURE A1 CRIME FILED BY THE INVESTIGATING OFFICER BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT - I, KANJIRAPALLY, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. Annexure A3 THE ORIGINAL OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT/DE FACTO COMPLAINANT STATING THE SETTLEMENT OF ALL THE DISPUTES WITH THE PETITIONER HEREIN PERTAINING TO THE REGISTRATION OF ANNEXURE A1 CRIME

Same Court & Year Kerala · 2022 Same Parties Krishna Kumar @ Rajesh vs State of Kerala Same Judge Honourable Dr. Justice Kauser Edappagath