Full Judgment
CRL.MC NO. 566 OF 2022 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH TUESDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF MARCH 2022 / 1ST CHAITHRA, 1944 CRL.MC NO. 566 OF 2022 CRIME NO.760/2020 OF Chandera Police Station, Kasargod PETITIONERS: 1 ANOOP POONKAVALAPPIL, AGED 32 YEARS SON OF RAGHAVAN POONKAVALAPPIL, HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT, PIN - 671310 2 RAGHAVAN POONKAVALAPPIL, AGED 70 YEARS SON OF KUNHIRAMAN.A.V, 3 PREMA.P.V, AGED 55 YEARS WIFE OF RAGHAVAN POONKAVALAPPIL, 4 SAMEEPA.P.V, AGED 36 YEARS WIFE OF RAJESH, BY ADV A.ARUNKUMAR RESPONDENTS: 1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 682 031. 2 RESHMA.P.M, AGED 25 YEARS DAUGHTER OF MURALI.V, PANAYAMTHOTTAM HOUSE, EROLE, BARE VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT., PIN - 671318 R1 BY SRI.M.P.PRASANTH -PUBLIC PROSECUTOR R2 BY ADV.VIPIN T.JOSE THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22.03.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: CRL.MC NO. 566 OF 2022 2
O R D E R
This Crl.M.C. has been preferred to quash Annexure 2 Final Report in Crime No.760/2020 of Chandera 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.
3. The offence alleged against the petitioners is under Section 498A of IPC.
4. The respondent No.2 entered appearance through counsel. An affidavit sworn in by her is also produced.
5. I have heard Sri.A.Arunkumar, the learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri.Vipin T.Jose, the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 and Sri.M.P.Prasanth, the learned Public Prosecutor.
6. The averments in the petition as well as the affidavit
sworn in by the respondent No.2 would show that the entire dispute between the parties has been amicably settled and the de facto CRL.MC NO. 566 OF 2022 3 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.
8. The dispute in the above case is purely personal in
nature. No public interest or harmony will be adversely affected by CRL.MC NO. 566 OF 2022 4 quashing the proceedings pursuant to Annexure 2 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.760/2020 of Chandera Police Station stands hereby quashed. Sd/- DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH JUDGE ab CRL.MC NO. 566 OF 2022 5 APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 566/2022 PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure1 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE F.I.R IN CRIME NO.760 OF 2020 OF CHANDERA POLICE STATION Annexure2 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO.760 OF 2020 OF CHANDERA POLICE STATION Annexure3 A TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN TO BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 RESPONDENTS ANNEXURES : NIL