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.

Muneeb vs State of Kerala

Muneeb vs State of Kerala

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Mar 08, 2022
~4 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1444607

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/479/2022

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Muneeb

Respondent

State of Kerala

Excerpt

.....the learned senior public prosecutor.6. the averments in the petition as well as the affidavitcrl.mc no. 479 of 2022 3 sworn in by the respondent nos.2 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, 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. crl.mc no. 479 of 2022 48. 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 ii final report. 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 2 final report in crime no.635/2015 of medical college police station, thiruvananthapuram stands hereby quashed. sd/- dr. kauser edappagath judge ab crl.mc no. 479 of 2022 5 appendix of crl.mc 479/2022 petitioner annexures annexure1 certified copy of.....

Full Judgment

CRL.MC NO. 479 OF 2022 1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH TUESDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF MARCH 2022 / 17TH PHALGUNA, 1943 CRL.MC NO. 479 OF 2022 CRIME NO.635/2015 OF MEDICAL COLLEGE POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PETITIONER/ACCUSED: MUNEEB, AGED 26 YEARS BITHULNOOR HOUSE, VEMBAYAM, MANNAVILA DESOM, KATTAYKKAL WARD, VENJARAMOODU MANICKAL VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 695615 BY ADVS. VISHNU BHUVANENDRAN B.ANUSREE RESHMA UNNIKRISHNAN SREELAKSHMI B. RESPONDENTS: 1 STATE OF KERALA HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031 2 GAYATHRI .S, AGED 35 YEARS HOUSE NO.4, NAVODAYA GARDENS, PARUTHIPPARA, THIRUVANATHAPURAM-695 011. PRESENTLY RESIDING AT VATTATHARA MADATHIL VEEDU, NEAR ALINGAL JN., KURUPPANKULANGARA POST, CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA- 688539, PIN - 688539 BY ADVS. SAJI SANKARAN NAIR SMT T V NEEMA -SR PP THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08.03.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: CRL.MC NO. 479 OF 2022 2

O R D E R

This Crl.M.C. has been preferred to quash Annexure 2 Final Report in Crime No.635/2015 of Medical College Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram on the ground of settlement between the parties.

2. The petitioner is the accused. The 2nd respondent is the de facto complainant.

3. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 469 of IPC and Section 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000.

4. The 2nd respondent entered appearance through counsel. An affidavit sworn in by her is also produced.

5. I have heard Sri.Vishnu Bhuvanendran, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri.Saji Sankaran Nair, 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

CRL.MC NO. 479 OF 2022 3 sworn in by the respondent Nos.2 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, 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. CRL.MC NO. 479 OF 2022 4

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 II Final Report. 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 2 Final Report in Crime No.635/2015 of Medical College Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram stands hereby quashed. Sd/- DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH JUDGE ab CRL.MC NO. 479 OF 2022 5 APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 479/2022 PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure1 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR DATED 23.05.2021IN CRIME NO. 635/2015 OF MEDICAL COLLEGE POLICE STATION, THIRUVANATHAPURAM Annexure2 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO. 635/2015 OF MEDICAL COLLEGE POLICE STATION, THIRUVANATHAPURAM Annexure3 TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 26.03.2021 RESPONDENTS ANNEXURES : NIL

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial