Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH FRIDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF APRIL 2022 / 18TH CHAITHRA, 1944 CRL.MC NO. 585 OF 2022 CRIME NO.114/2021 OF Cantonment Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram PETITIONER/2ND ACCUSED GLADIN GILBERT AGED 21 YEARS DAUGHTER OF GILBERT ANTONY, RESIDING AT T.C 35.2933, HOLY FAMILY LANE, VALLAKKADAVU P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 695008 BY ADVS. MITHUN P. HARISHMA P. THAMPI RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT AND DE FACTO COMPLAINANT
1 STATE OF KERALA HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031 2 NADHIRA MEHRIN AGED 21 YEARS DAUGHTER OF SUMAYYA, NOW RESIDING AT HOUSE NO. 103, MOSQUE LANE, KUMARAPURAM, MEDICAL COLLEGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM , PERMANENTLY RESIDING AT T.C
48. 319, NEAR HIGHWAY JUMA-MASJID, PAZHANCHIRA, MUTTATHARA P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DIST,, PIN - BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR T.V.NEEMA Sr. ADV.Jaeona James FOR R2 THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08.04.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This Crl.M.C. has been preferred to quash Annexure-1 Final Report in crime No.114/2021 of Cantonment police station, on the ground of settlement between the parties.
2. The petitioner is the second accused and the 2nd respondent is the de facto complainant.
3. The offences alleged as against the second accused are under Sections 294(b), 506 r/w 34 IPC and under Section 18(d) of the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019.
4. The respondent No.2 entered appearance through counsel. An affidavit sworn in by her is also produced.
5. I have heard Sri.Mithun P., the learned counsel for the petitioner, Smt.Jaeona James, the learned counsel for the 2 nd respondent and Smt.T.V.Neema the learned Senior Public Prosecutor for the respondent No.1.
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 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 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 crime No.114/2021 of Cantonment police station, stands hereby quashed. Sd/- DR.KAUSER EDAPPAGATH, Judge Mrcs. APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 585/2022 PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure1 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT/ CHARGE SHEET IN CRIME NO: 114 / 2021 OF CANTONMENT POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT Annexure2 THE AFFIDAVIT, SOLEMNLY AFFIRMED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT.