Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH MONDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF APRIL 2022 / 14TH CHAITHRA, 1944 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN C.C.NO.655/2016 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT -II, ALUVA PETITIONERS: 1 HASSAN AGED 59 YEARS S/O.ABDUL KHADAR, ELOOKKARA KARA, KADUNGALLOOR VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 683 522. 2 ABDUL KAREEM AGED 47 YEARS S/O.ABDUL KHADAR, MADAVANA PARAMBIL, MASJAID ROAD, ELOOKKARA KARA, KADUNGALLOOR VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 683 522. BY ADVS. JAISON JOSEPH V.M.SAJAN M.N.SANJITH SMITHA C.GOPI RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682 031. 2 SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE BINANIPURAM POLICE STATION, PIN - 683 502. 3 ASMA KHALID AGED 41 YEARS W/O.KHALID, PERIKULATHIL HOUSE, NEAR PRIYADARSHINI BUS STOP, ELOOKKARA KARA, KADUNGALLOOR VILLAGE, KODUNGALLUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 683 110. BY ADV JOSE PAUL
OTHER PRESENT: SMT T V NEEMA -SR PP THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04.04.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This Crl.M.C. has been preferred to quash Annexure A1 Final Report in C.C No.655/2016 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Aluva on the ground of settlement between the parties.
2. The petitioners are the accused Nos.1 and 2. The 3 rd respondent is the de-facto complainant
3. The offence alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 447, 341, 294(b), 323 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
4. The respondent No.3 entered appearance through counsel. An affidavit sworn in by her is also produced.
5. I have heard Sri. Jaison Joseph, the learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri.Jose Paul, the learned counsel for the respondent No.3 and Smt.T.V.Neema, 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 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 by quashing the proceedings pursuant to Annexure A1. 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 A1 Final Report in C.C No.655/2016 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Aluva stands hereby quashed. Sd/- DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH JUDGE bng APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 227/2022 PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure A1 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL
REPORT/CHARGE SHEET IN C.C.NO.655 OF 2016 ON THE FILE OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-II, ALUVA. Annexure A2 THE AFFIDAVIT FILED BY RESPONDENT NO.3.