Rajesh @ Rajesh Kumar vs State of Kerala

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Mar 31, 2022

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1441488

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/1441488
Court: Kerala High Court
Judge: Honourable Dr. Justice Kauser Edappagath
Decided On: Mar 31, 2022
Case Number: Crl.MC/202/2022

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Rajesh @ Rajesh Kumar

Respondent

State of Kerala

Excerpt

.......2..orderthis crl.m.c. has been preferred to quash annexure iii final report in crime no.687/2012 of maranalloor 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 498a of the ipc.4. the respondent no.3 entered appearance through counsel. an affidavit sworn in by her is also produced.5. i have heard sri.ayyappan sankar, the learnedcounsel for the petitioner, sri.s.r.sreejith, the learned counsel for the respondent no.3 and sri.m.p.prasanth, the learned public prosecutor for the respondent nos.1 and 2.6. the averments in the petition as well as the affidavitsworn 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, submits ..3.. 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 iii final report in crime no.687/2012 of maranalloor police.....

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH THURSDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF MARCH 2022/ 10TH CHAITHRA, 1944 CRL.MC NO. 202 OF 2022 CC 36/2013 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, KATTAKADA Crime No.687/2012 of Maranalloor Police Station PETITIONER/ACCUSED: RAJESH @ RAJESH KUMAR AGED 42 YEARS S/O. KRISHNANASARI, VADAKKEKARA PUTHEN VEEDU, PUNNAVOOR, KOOVALASSERI P.O., MARANALLOOR VILLAGE, KATTAKKADA TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695512 BY ADVS. AYYAPPAN SANKAR JAYAN JOHN S.HRIDYA RESPONDENTS/STATE & DE FACTO COMPLAINANT: 1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031 2 THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE MARANALLOOR POLICE STATION, MARANALLOOR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 126. 3 RAJITHA T P AGED 34 YEARS D/O. PARAMESWARAN ASARI, RATHEESH BHAVAN, THOOVALLOOR KONAM, KULATHUMMAL VILLAGE, KATTAKKADA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 572 R3 BY ADV S.R.SREEJITH OTHER PRESENT: R1 & R2 BY SRI M P PRASANTH- PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31.03.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ..2..

ORDER

This Crl.M.C. has been preferred to quash Annexure III Final Report in Crime No.687/2012 of Maranalloor 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 498A of the IPC.

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

5. I have heard Sri.Ayyappan Sankar, the learned

counsel for the petitioner, Sri.S.R.Sreejith, the learned counsel for the respondent No.3 and Sri.M.P.Prasanth, the learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent Nos.1 and 2.

6. The averments in the petition as well as 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, submits ..3.. 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 III Final Report in Crime No.687/2012 of Maranalloor 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 III Final Report in Crime No.687/2012 of Maranalloor Police Station stands hereby quashed. Sd/- DR.KAUSER EDAPPAGATH, JUDGE skj ..5.. APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 202/2022 PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES Annexure I TRUE COPY OF THE PRIVATE COMPLAINT

FILED BY 3RD RESPONDENT IN THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, KATTAKADA ON 10.8.2012 AS C.M.P.NO.1693/2012 Annexure II CERTIFIED TRUE COPY OF F.I.R. DATED 12.9.2012 IN CRIME NO.687/2012 OF MARANALLOOR POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM RURAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM Annexure III CERTIFIED TRUE COPY OF FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO.687/2012 OF MARANALLOOR POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM RURAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM Annexure IV TRUE COPY OF THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT SIGNED BY THE PETITIONER AND 3RD RESPONDENT AND FILED IN O.P.1151/2016 ON THE FILE OF FAMILY COURT, NEDUMANGAD Annexure V TRUE COPY OF THE FIXED DEPOSIT RECEIPT DATED 25.11.2021 ISSUED FROM FEDERAL BANK, PEYAD BRANCH Annexure VI ORIGINAL NOTARY ATTESTED AFFIDAVIT EXECUTED BY 3RD RESPONDENT ON 10.4.2021

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