Dinesh, vs the State of Kerala

Dinesh, vs The State of Kerala

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Mar 11, 2022

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1445230

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/1445230
Court: Kerala High Court
Judge: Honourable Dr. Justice Kauser Edappagath
Decided On: Mar 11, 2022
Case Number: Crl.MC/544/2022

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Dinesh,

Respondent

The State of Kerala

Excerpt

.....the learned public prosecutor. crl.mc no. 544 of 2022 46. the averments in the petition as well as the affidavitssworn 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 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 punjaband 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 crl.mc no. 544 of 2022 5 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 a2 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 a2 final report in crime no.289/2018 of edakkara police station stands hereby quashed. sd/- dr. kauser edappagath judge ab crl.mc no. 544 of 2022 6 appendix of crl.mc 544/2022 petitioner annexures annexure a1 certified copy of the fir in crime no......

Full Judgment

CRL.MC NO. 544 OF 2022 1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH FRIDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF MARCH 2022 / 20TH PHALGUNA, 1943 CRL.MC NO. 544 OF 2022 CRIME NO.289/2018 OF EDAKKARA POLICE STATION PETITIONERS/ACCUSED:

1 DINESH, AGED 22 YEARS S/O. JOHNY, ERAMANGALATH HOUSE, THEYYATHUMPADAM, 2 ANEESH, AGED 23 YEARS S/O. SURESH, NELLIKKATTIL HOUSE, THEYYATHUMPADAM, KANAKKAD, EDAKKARA, 3 ANANTHU S KUMAR, AGED 26 YEARS S/O. SATHEESHKUMAR, THEKKEKALAYIL HOUSE, KANAKKAD, 4 VISHNU, AGED 24 YEARS S/O. KRISHNANKUTTY, KALANCHIRA PUTHAN VEETIL, KANAKKAD,

BY ADV P.SAMSUDIN RESPONDENTS: 1 THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM 682 031. (CRIME NO. 289/2018 OF EDAKKARA POLICE STATION) CRL.MC NO. 544 OF 2022 2 2 MADHUKUTTAN, AGED 39 YEARS, S/O. RAMACHANDRAN, ERAMANGALATH HOUSE, THEYYATHUMPADAM, EDAKKARA, 3 PRABITHA, AGED 30 YEARS, W/O. MADHUKUTTAN, ERAMANGALATH HOUSE, THEYYATHUMPADAM, EDAKKARA, BY ADV SHYAM NAIR SRI M P PRASANTH-PP THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11.03.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: CRL.MC NO. 544 OF 2022 3

O R D E R

This Crl.M.C. has been preferred to quash Annexure A2 Final Report in Crime No.289/2018 of Edakkara Police Station on the ground of settlement between the parties.

2. The petitioners are the accused Nos.1 to 4. The 2nd respondent is the de facto complainant and the 3rd respondent is the victim.

3. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 447, 323 and 354 r/w 34 of IPC.

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

5. I have heard Sri.P.Samsudin, the learned counsel for

the petitioners, Sri.Shyam Nair, the learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2 and 3 and Sri.M.P.Prasanth, the learned Public Prosecutor. CRL.MC NO. 544 OF 2022 4

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 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 CRL.MC NO. 544 OF 2022 5 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 A2 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 A2 Final Report in Crime No.289/2018 of Edakkara Police Station stands hereby quashed. Sd/- DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH JUDGE ab CRL.MC NO. 544 OF 2022 6 APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 544/2022 PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure A1 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO. Annexure A2 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT AND MEMORANDUM OF EVIDENCE IN CRIME NO. Annexure A3 THE ORIGINAL AFFIDAVIT DATED 18.01.2022 SWORN IN BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. Annexure A4 THE ORIGINAL AFFIDAVIT DATED 18.01.2022 SWORN IN BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. RESPONDENTS ANNEXURES: NIL

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