Full Judgment
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. 232 OF 2022 CR.NO.1069/2021 OF KODUVALLY POLICE STATION IN CC 409/21 OF JFCM I THAMARASSERY PETITIONER/ACCUSED: ABRASHA, AGED 27 YEARS S/O. IBRAHIM, PUTHENPURAYIL VEEDU, THAMARASSERY, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN - 673573 BY ADVS. MATHEW KURIAKOSE J.KRISHNAKUMAR (ADOOR) RESPONDENTS/STATE & VICTIM:
1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031 2 NAJIYA NASRIN,AGED 20 YEARS D/O. ABDUL MAJEED, UPPINAKATHU VEEDU, KARUVANPOYIL, KODUVALLY, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN - BY ADV MONI GEORGE R2 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: -:2:-
ORDER
Dated this the 14th day of February, 2022 This Crl.M.C. has been preferred to quash Annexure A Final Report in Crime No. 1069/2021 of Koduvally Police Station and further proceedings in C.C.No.409/2021 of JFCM I, Thamarassery on the ground of settlement between the parties.
2. The petitioner is the accused. The 2nd respondent is the defacto complainant.
3. The offence alleged against the petitioner is under Section 498A 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. Mathew Kuriakose, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Adv.Moni George, 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 -:3:-
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 -:4:-
by quashing the proceedings pursuant to Annexure A. The offence 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 A Final Report in Crime No. 1069/2021 of Koduvally Police Station and further proceedings in C.C.No.409/2021 of JFCM I, Thamarassery stands hereby quashed. Sd/- DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH JUDGE kp True copy P.A. To Judge -:5:- APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 232/2022 PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO. 1069 OF 2021 OF KODUVALLY POLICE STATION Annexure B AFFIDAVIT DATED 06.01.2022 SWORN TO BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT