Sujith, vs State of Kerala,

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Feb 08, 2022

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1442459

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/1442459
Court: Kerala High Court
Judge: Honourable Dr. Justice Kauser Edappagath
Decided On: Feb 08, 2022
Case Number: Crl.MC/278/2022

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Sujith,

Respondent

State of Kerala,

Excerpt

.....crl.m.c. has been preferred to quash annexure-i fir in crime no.1232 of 2021 of chadayamangalam police station on the ground of settlement between the parties.2. the petitioners are the accused nos.1 to 3. the 3rd respondent is the de facto complainant.3. the offence alleged against the petitioners is section 498a read with section 34 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.d.kishore, the learned counsel forthe petitioners, sri.r.b.rajesh and sri.g.biju, 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 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-i fir in crime no.1232 of 2021 of.....

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH TUESDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022 / 19TH MAGHA, 1943 CRL.MC NO. 278 OF 2022 CRIME NO.1232/2021 OF CHADAYAMANGALAM POLICE STATION PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 TO 3:

1 SUJITH,AGED 31 YEARS S/O. SOMAN, 'KRISHNALAYM', IRINGAYIL, VEMBAYAM, MANIKKAL VILLAGE, NEDUMANGADU TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 615 2 JAYA, AGED 53 YEARS, W/O. SOMAN, 'KRISHNALAYAM', IRINGAYIL, VEMBAYAM, MANIKKAL VILLAGE, NEDUMANGADU TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 3 K. SOMAN,AGED 64 YEARS S/O.KRISHNAN, 'KRISHNALAYM', IRINGAYIL, VEMBAYAM, MANIKKAL VILLAGE, NEDUMANGADU TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 615 BY ADVS.D.KISHORE, R.MURALEEKRISHNAN (MALAKKARA) ARYA JOSEPH, MEERA GOPINATH

RESPONDENTS/STATE COMPLAINANT & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:

1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER,CHADAYAMANGALAM POLICE STATION, KOLLAM DISTRICT,PIN 691 534. 3 ANAGHA RAJENDRAN,AGED 23 YEARS D/O. RAJENDRAN, VADAKKEMANGALATHU VEEDU, KURIYODE, CHADAYAMANGALAM, KOLLAM RURAL, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN 691 534.

R3 BY ADVS.R.B.RAJESH G.BIJU R1 & R2 BY SRI M P PRASANTH-PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08.02.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ..2..

ORDER

This Crl.M.C. has been preferred to quash Annexure-I FIR in Crime No.1232 of 2021 of Chadayamangalam Police Station on the ground of settlement between the parties.

2. The petitioners are the accused Nos.1 to 3. The 3rd respondent is the de facto complainant.

3. The offence alleged against the petitioners is Section 498A read with Section 34 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.D.Kishore, the learned counsel for

the petitioners, Sri.R.B.Rajesh and Sri.G.Biju, 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 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-I FIR in Crime No.1232 of 2021 of Chadayamangalam 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-I FIR in Crime No.1232 of 2021 of Chadayamangalam Police Station stands hereby quashed. Sd/- DR.KAUSER EDAPPAGATH, JUDGE skj ..5.. APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 278/2022 PETITIONERS' ANNEXURES Annexure I CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME STATION. Annexure II TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF

AGREEMENT DATED 16.12.2021 ENTERED IN TO BETWEEN THE PETITIONERS AND THE 3RD RESPONDENT IN CRL.M.C. 2071/2021. Annexure III TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 20.12.2021 IN CRL.M.C. 2071/2021 ON THE FILE OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT, IV ,KOLLAM. Annexure IV TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT DATED 9.1.2022 EXECUTED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT BEFORE NOTARY PUBLIC.

Same Court & Year Kerala · 2022 Same Parties Sujith, vs State of Kerala, Same Judge Honourable Dr. Justice Kauser Edappagath