Babu vs Shari

BABU vs SHARI

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Mar 07, 2022

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1445356

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/1445356
Court: Kerala High Court
Judge: Honourable Dr. Justice Kauser Edappagath
Decided On: Mar 07, 2022
Case Number: Crl.MC/559/2022

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

BABU

Respondent

SHARI

Excerpt

.....to quash annexure 1 final report in c.c.no.4082/2013 on the file of the judicial first class magistrate court i, alathur on the ground of settlement between the parties.2. the petitioners are the accused nos.1 to 3. the 1st respondent is the de facto complainant.3. the offences alleged against the petitioners are under sections 498a, 406, 420, 506(1) and 294(b) r/w 34 of ipc.4. the 1st respondent entered appearance through counsel. an affidavit sworn in by her is also produced.5. i have heard sri.v.a.johnson, the learned counsel for the petitioners, sri.unni sebastian kappen, the learned counsel for the respondent no.1 and smt.t.v.neema, the learned senior public prosecutor.6. the averments in the petition as well as the affidavitcrl.mc no. 559 of 2022 3 sworn in by the respondent no.1 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 notwithstandingthe bar under s.320 of cr.p.c. if it is warranted in the given factsand circumstances of the case or to ensure ends of justice or to prevent abuse of process of any court. crl.mc no. 559 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 1 final.....

Full Judgment

CRL.MC NO. 559 OF 2022 1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH MONDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF MARCH 2022 / 16TH PHALGUNA, 1943 CRL.MC NO. 559 OF 2022 C.C.NO.4082/2013 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT I, ALATHUR PETITIONERS:

1 BABU, AGED 45 YEARS SON OF VELAYUDHAN, ALUMPETTY VEEU, MURALI NIVAS, PUTHUCODE POST, ALATHUR, PALAKKAD, PIN - 678687 2 SHAILAJA, AGED 47 YEARS WIFE OF RAMESH, ANEESH NIVAS, PUTHENPURA, KUZHALMANNAM POST, PALAKKAD PALAKKAD, PIN - 678702 3 RAMESH, AGED 55 YEARS SON OF BALAN, ANEESH NIVAS, PUTHENPURA, KOZHALMANNAM POST, PALAKKAD. PALAKKAD, PIN - 678571 BY ADV V.A.JOHNSON (VARIKKAPPALLIL)

RESPONDENTS: 1 SHARI, AGED 35 YEARS DAUGTER OF AJAYAN, VADAKKADAN VEEDU, VELOOPPADAM POST, POUND DESOM, THRISSUR, PIN - 680303 2 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031 BY ADV UNNI SEBASTIAN KAPPEN SMT T V NEEMA -SR PP THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07.03.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: CRL.MC NO. 559 OF 2022 2

O R D E R

This Crl.M.C. has been preferred to quash Annexure 1 Final Report in C.C.No.4082/2013 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court I, Alathur on the ground of settlement between the parties.

2. The petitioners are the accused Nos.1 to 3. The 1st respondent is the de facto complainant.

3. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 498A, 406, 420, 506(1) and 294(B) r/w 34 of IPC.

4. The 1st respondent entered appearance through counsel. An affidavit sworn in by her is also produced.

5. I have heard Sri.V.A.Johnson, the learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri.Unni Sebastian Kappen, the learned counsel for the respondent No.1 and Smt.T.V.Neema, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor.

6. The averments in the petition as well as the affidavit

CRL.MC NO. 559 OF 2022 3 sworn in by the respondent No.1 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. 559 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 1 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 1 Final Report in C.C.No.4082/2013 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court I, Alathur stands hereby quashed. Sd/- DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH JUDGE ab CRL.MC NO. 559 OF 2022 5 APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 559/2022 PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure1 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN C.C.NO.4082 OF 2013 OF THE COURT OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE-I, ALATHUR. Annexure2 TRUE COPY OF THE DEATH CERTIFICATE OF 2ND ACCUSED DATED 05.05.2014 ISSUED FROM PALAKKAD MUNICIPALITY Annexure3 TRUE COPY OF THE DEATH CERTIFICATE OF 3RD ACCUSED DATED 16.02.2015 ISSUED FROM AVANUR GRAMA PANCHAYAT Annexure4 AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT EVIDENCING THE FACTUM OF SETTLEMENT RESPONDENTS ANNEXURES : NIL

Same Court & Year Kerala · 2022 Same Parties BABU vs SHARI Same Judge Honourable Dr. Justice Kauser Edappagath