Adarsh vs State of Kerala

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Mar 29, 2022

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1443720

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/1443720
Court: Kerala High Court
Judge: Honourable Dr. Justice Kauser Edappagath
Decided On: Mar 29, 2022
Case Number: Crl.MC/390/2022

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Adarsh

Respondent

State of Kerala

Excerpt

.....crl.m.c. has been preferred to quash annexure a1 final report in crime no.1008/2021 of balussery police station on the ground of settlement between the parties.2. the petitioners are the accused nos.1 and 2. the 2 nd respondent is the de facto complainant.3. the offences alleged against the petitioners are under sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 324, 294(b), 354 and 427 read with section 149 of the ipc.4. the respondent nos.2 and 3 entered appearance through counsel. affidavits sworn in by them are also produced.5. i have heard sri.prem navas, the learned counsel for the petitioners, sri.ajoy venu, the learned counsel for the respondent nos.2 and 3 and sri.m.p.prasanth, the learned public prosecutor for the respondent no.1.6. the averments in the petition as well as theaffidavits sworn in by the respondent nos.2 and 3 would show that the entire dispute between the parties has been amicably settled and the de facto complainant has decided not to ..3.. 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 innature. no public interest or harmony will be adversely affected by quashing the proceedings pursuant.....

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH TUESDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF MARCH 2022 / 8TH CHAITHRA, 1944 CRL.MC NO. 390 OF 2022 CRIME No.1008/2021 OF BALUSSERY POLICE STATION PETITIONERS/ACCUSED Nos.1 and 2: 1 ADARSH AGED 23 YEARS S/O. HARIDASAN, RESIDING AT POOZHIKANDIYIL HOUSE, WAYALADA P. O., UNNIKULAM, KOYILANDY TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN - 673574. 2 JUSTINE AGED 23 YEARS S/O. JAMES, RESIDING AT KOLAMANKUZHI, WAYALADA P. O., UNNIKULAM, KOYILANDY TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN - 673574. BY ADVS. J.R.PREM NAVAZ SUMEEN S. RESPONDENTS/STATE & DE FACTO COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682 031. 2 ARJUN @ APPANI (INSANE) AGED 25 YEARS S/O. PURUSHU, RESIDING AT THOONAMKANDIYIL HOUSE, P. O. THURUTHIAD, BALUSSERY, KOYILANDY TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN - 676552, REPRESENTED BY HIS WIFE HEREIN-3RD RESPONDENT. 3 SIVAPRIYA AGED 20 YEARS W/O. ARJUN @ APPANI, RESIDING AT THOONAMKANDIYIL HOUSE, P. O. THURUTHIAD, BALUSSERY, KOYILANDY TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN - 676552. R2 & R3 BY ADV AJOY VENU
OTHER PRESENT: R1 BY SRI M P PRASANTH- PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29.03.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ..2..

ORDER

This Crl.M.C. has been preferred to quash Annexure A1 Final Report in Crime No.1008/2021 of Balussery Police Station on the ground of settlement between the parties.

2. The petitioners are the accused Nos.1 and 2. The 2 nd respondent is the de facto complainant.

3. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 324, 294(b), 354 and 427 read with Section 149 of the IPC.

4. The respondent Nos.2 and 3 entered appearance through counsel. Affidavits sworn in by them are also produced.

5. I have heard Sri.Prem Navas, the learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri.Ajoy Venu, the learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2 and 3 and Sri.M.P.Prasanth, the learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent No.1.

6. The averments in the petition as well as the

affidavits sworn in by the respondent Nos.2 and 3 would show that the entire dispute between the parties has been amicably settled and the de facto complainant has decided not to ..3.. 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 Final Report in Crime No.1008/2021 of Balussery Police Station. ..4.. 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 Crime No.1008/2021 of Balussery Police Station stands hereby quashed.

Sd/- DR.KAUSER EDAPPAGATH, JUDGE skj ..5.. APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 390/2022 PETITIONERS' ANNEXURES Annexure A1 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE CHARGE SHEET IN CRIME NO.1008 OF 2021 OF BALUSSERY POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. Annexure A2 THE AFFIDAVIT, SOLEMNLY AFFIRMED FOR AND ON BEHALF OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT / DEFACTO COMPLAINANT. Annexure A3 THE AFFIDAVIT, SOLEMNLY AFFIRMED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT / INJURED.

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