Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Bibeesh, vs State of Kerala,

Bibeesh, vs State of Kerala,

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Feb 14, 2022
~4 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1443289

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

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Kerala High Court
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
Crl.MC/364/2022

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Bibeesh,

Respondent

State of Kerala,

Excerpt

.....the learned public prosecutor.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 crl.mc no. 364 of 2022 3 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] hasheld that the high court invoking s.482 of cr.p.c can quashcriminal 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 1. the crl.mc no. 364 of 2022 4 offence in question does 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 1 final report in crime no.215/2021 of vatakara police station stands hereby quashed. sd/- dr. kauser edappagath judge ab crl.mc no. 364 of 2022 5 appendix of crl.mc 364/2022 petitioner annexures annexure i certified copy of the final report filed by the 2nd.....

Full Judgment

CRL.MC NO. 364 OF 2022 1

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. 364 OF 2022 IN CC 399/2021 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS ,VADAKARA CRIME NO.215/2021 OF VATAKARA POLICE STATION PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.1 TO 3:

1 BIBEESH, AGED 30 YEARS S/O.BABU, KALLAYINTAVIDA HOUSE, VELUTHAMALA, PALAYADNADA, PUTHUPPANAM, VATAKARA, KOZHIKODE-673 105. 2 PUSHPALATHA, AGED 55 YEARS W/O.BABU, KALLAYINTAVIDA HOUSE, VELUTHAMALA, PALAYADNADA, PUTHUPPANAM, VATAKARA, KOZHIKODE-673 105. 3 BIBISHA, AGED 32 YEARS W/O.ANEESH, PARAMBATH HOUSE, ATTAKUND BRIDGE, THURAYUR, PAYYOLI, KOZHIKODE-673 522. BY ADVS. GOKUL D. SUDHAKARAN VAISHNAV DATH S.

RESPONDENTS/STATE:

1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682 031. 2 THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VATAKARA POLICE STATIN, VATAKARA, KOZHIKODE-673 508. 3 SNEHA.C.H., AGED 22 YEARS D/O.BABURAJ, CHALOTH HOUSE, CHANIYAMKADVU, VATAKARA, KOZHIKODE-673 541. BY ADV MRUDULA P.M 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: CRL.MC NO. 364 OF 2022 2

O R D E R

This Crl.M.C. has been preferred to quash Annexure 1 Final Report in Crime No.215/2021 of Vatakara 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 offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 498A and 406 r/w 34 of IPC.

4. The 3rd respondent entered appearance through counsel. An affidavit sworn in by her is also produced.

5. I have heard Sri.Gokul D.Sudhakaran, the learned counsel for the petitioners, Smt.Mridula P.M, the learned counsel for the respondent No.3 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.3 would show that the entire dispute between the parties has been amicably settled and the de CRL.MC NO. 364 OF 2022 3 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 1. The CRL.MC NO. 364 OF 2022 4 offence in question does 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 1 Final Report in Crime No.215/2021 of Vatakara Police Station stands hereby quashed. Sd/- DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH JUDGE ab CRL.MC NO. 364 OF 2022 5 APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 364/2022 PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure I CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN CRIME NO.215/2021 OF VATAKRA POLICE STATION DATED 18.06.2021. Annexure II AFFIDAVIT OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 06.01.2022. RESPONDENTS ANNEXURES : NIL

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial