Jinesh, vs State of Kerala

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Mar 16, 2022

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1443119

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/1443119
Court: Kerala High Court
Judge: Honourable Dr. Justice Kauser Edappagath
Decided On: Mar 16, 2022
Case Number: Crl.MC/335/2022

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Jinesh,

Respondent

State of Kerala

Excerpt

.....been preferred to quash all further proceedings pursuant to annexure a1 fir in crime no.617/2021 of payyoly police station on the ground of settlement between the parties.2. the petitioners are the accused nos. 1 to 4. the 2 nd respondent is the defacto complainant.3. the offences alleged against the petitioners are under sections 498 a and 34 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. a.c. venugopal, the learned counsel for the petitioners, sri. a. muhammed hashim, the learned counsel for the respondent no.2 and smt. t.v. neema, the learned senior 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 -:4:-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 -:5:-by quashing the proceedings pursuant to annexure a1. the offences in question do not fall within the category of.....

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF MARCH 2022 / 25TH PHALGUNA, 1943 CRL.MC NO. 335 OF 2022 CRIME NO.617/2021 OF Payyoli Police Station, Kozhikode PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 TO 4: 1 JINESH C., AGED 37 YEARS S/O. RAMANCHANDRAN NAMBIAR, 2 C. SREELATHA, AGED 63 YEARS W/O. RAMANCHANDRAN NAMBIAR, 3 VANI.C., AGED 34 YEARS D/O. RAMANCHANDRAN NAMBIAR, 4 RAMANCHANDRAN NAMBIAR, AGED 68 YEARS S/O.K.M. NARAYANAN NAMBIAR, BY ADVS. A.C.VENUGOPAL VIDHYA. A.C -:2:- RESPONDENTS/STATE & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:

1 STATE OF KERALA THROUGH THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, PAYYOLI POLICE STATION, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERANKULAM, 682 031. 2 ANWAYA AGED 33 YEARS D/O. BALAKRISHNAN KIDAVU, CHANIKANDIL HOUSE, IRINGATH P.O., KOYILANDY THALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT 673 523. BY ADV A.MUHAMMED HASHIM SMT. T.V. NEEMA, SR. PP

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16.03.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: -:3:-

ORDER

Dated this the 16th day of March, 2022 This Crl.M.C. has been preferred to quash all further proceedings pursuant to Annexure A1 FIR in Crime No.617/2021 of Payyoly Police Station on the ground of settlement between the parties.

2. The petitioners are the accused Nos. 1 to 4. The 2 nd respondent is the defacto complainant.

3. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 498 A and 34 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. A.C. Venugopal, the learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri. A. Muhammed Hashim, the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 and Smt. T.V. Neema, the learned Senior 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 -:4:-

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 -:5:-

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. All further proceedings pursuant to Annexure A1 FIR in Crime No.617/2021 of Payyoly Police Station stands hereby quashed. Sd/- DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH JUDGE kp True copy P.A. To Judge -:6:- APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 335/2022 PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure A1 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO 20.07.2021. Annexure A2 AFFIDAVIT OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

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