Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH THURSDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF MARCH 2022 / 3RD CHAITHRA, 1944 CRL.MC NO. 1206 OF 2022 CRIME NO.262/2021 OF POOKOTTUMPADAM POLICE STATION, Malappuram CC 662/2021 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS ,NILAMBUR PETITIONER/ACCUSED: RARAJEESH, AGED 40 YEARS ERERANJIPALAM HOUSE, CHETALLOOR, MANNARKKAD, PALAKKAD PALAKKAD, PIN - 678583 BY ADV VINOD KUMAR.C RESPONDENT/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTER HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ADVOCATE GENERAL OFFICE ,HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031 2 ATHIRA, AGED 27 YEARS D/O SASI, THERUVIKKAL HOUSE, T K COLONY, KAVALAMUKKATA, NILAMBUR MALAPPURAM MALAPPURAM, PIN - 679332 ADV. LIJU M.P SRI. M.P. PRASANTH, PP THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24.03.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: -:2:-
ORDER
Dated this the 24th day of March, 2022 This Crl.M.C. has been preferred to quash Annexure A Final Report in C.C.No. 662/2021 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Nilambur on the ground of settlement between the parties.
2. The petitioner is the accused. The 2nd respondent is the defacto complainant.
3. The offence alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 406 and 498 A 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. Vinod Kumar, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri. Liju M.P., 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 -:3:-
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 -:4:- nature. No public interest or harmony will be adversely affected
by quashing the proceedings pursuant to Annexure A. 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 A Final Report in C.C.No. 662/2021 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Nilambur stands hereby quashed. Sd/- DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH JUDGE kp True copy P.A. To Judge -:5:- APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 1206/2022 PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure A FINAL REPORT IN CC 662/2021 ON THE FILE OF JFCM NIAMBUR Annexure B FIR IN CRIME 262/2021 OF POOKOTTUPADAM POLICE STATION Annexure C AFFIDAVIT OF 2ND RESPONDENT