Anand, vs State of Kerala

ANAND, vs State of Kerala

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Feb 24, 2022

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1445210

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/1445210
Court: Kerala High Court
Judge: Honourable Dr. Justice Kauser Edappagath
Decided On: Feb 24, 2022
Case Number: Crl.MC/540/2022

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

ANAND,

Respondent

State of Kerala

Excerpt

.....a2 final report in s.c. no. 1143/2018 on the files of the additional district and sessions court, thiruvananthapuram on the ground of settlement between the parties.2. the petitioners are the accused nos. 1 to 3. the 2 nd respondent is the defacto complainant and the 3rd respondent is the injured.3. the offences alleged against the petitioners are under sections 452, 294(b), 324, 326, 308 and 34 of 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. m.r. sarin, the learned counsel for the petitioners, sri. aji s, the learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2 and 3 and sri.m.p. prasanth, the learned public prosecutor.6. the averments in the petition as well as the affidavits -:4:-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 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 he 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.-:5:-8. the dispute in the above case is purely personal in nature. no public interest or harmony will be adversely affectedby quashing the proceedings pursuant to annexure a2......

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH THURSDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022 / 5TH PHALGUNA, 1943 CRL.MC NO. 540 OF 2022 CRIME NO.21/2017 OF Kanjiramkulam Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram IN SC 1143/2018 OF ADDL.DISTRICT & SESSIONS COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS. 1 TO 3 : 1 ANAND, AGED 27 YEARS S/O. BHUVANACHANDRAN, ANAND BHAVAN, PANANINNA, KANJIRAMKULAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 524. 2 LALU, AGED 29 YEARS S/O. SUGATHAN, CHARMMEL VILLAGE, PANANINNA, KANJIRAMKULAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 524. 3 SHAN SIVARAJAN, AGED 28 YEARS SIVARAJAN,SHAN NIVAS, , PANANINNA, KANJIRAMKULAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 524. BY ADV M.R.SARIN RESPONDENTS/STATE & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM, KOCHI 682 031. -:2:- 2 KANNAN, AGED 36 YEARS S/O. THANKAPPAN, KALLINGAL VELI HOUSE, KOMALAPURAM, NORTH, ARYAD, MANNANCHERRI, ALAPPUZHA 688 538. 3 MANJU, D/O. SANTHA, MULANNINA HOUSE, KANJIRAMKULAM, PRESENTLY AND PERMANENTLY RESIDING AT KALLINGAL VELI, NORTH ARYAD P.O., KOMALAPURAM VILLAGE, MANNAHCHERI ALAPPUZHA 688 538. BY ADV AJI S.R2, 3 SRI. M.P. PRASANTH, PP
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24.02.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: -:3:-

ORDER

Dated this the 24th day of February, 2022 This Crl.M.C. has been preferred to quash Annexure A2 Final Report in S.C. No. 1143/2018 on the files of the Additional District and Sessions Court, Thiruvananthapuram on the ground of settlement between the parties.

2. The petitioners are the accused Nos. 1 to 3. The 2 nd respondent is the defacto complainant and the 3rd respondent is the injured.

3. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 452, 294(b), 324, 326, 308 and 34 of 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. M.R. Sarin, the learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri. Aji S, the learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and Sri.M.P. Prasanth, the learned Public Prosecutor.

6. The averments in the petition as well as the affidavits -:4:-

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 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 he 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.

-:5:-

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 A2. 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 A2 Final Report in S.C. No. 1143/2018 on the files of the Additional District and Sessions Court, Thiruvananthapuram stands hereby quashed.

Sd/- DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH JUDGE kp True copy P.A. To Judge -:6:- APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 540/2022 PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure A1 THE TRUE COPY OF F.I.R. IN CRIME NO. Annexure A2 THE TRUE COPY OF FINAL REPORT IN SC NO. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT, POSCO TRIVANDRUM. Annexure A3 THE TRUE COPY OF AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. Annexure A4 THE TRUE COPY OF AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

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