Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH TUESDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF MAY 2022 / 10TH JYAISHTA, 1944 CRL.MC NO. 2405 OF 2022 Crime No. 1314 of 2021 of Koipuram police station PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO. 1: VIJAYAKUMAR, AGED 44 YEARS S/O K S MANI AADIPLACKAL HOUSE, KAVUMKALPADI, PADUTHODU P.O, PURAMATTOM VILLAGE, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, , PIN - 689544 BY ADV PRAFIN JOSEPH ZACHARIA RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA PIN - 682031 2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER KOIPURAM POLICE STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT , PIN - 689531 3 SAUMYA JOBY AGED 33 YEARS W/O JOBY, VADAKKETTATHU HOUSE, PADUTHODU.P.O, PURAMATTOM VILLAGE, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN - 689586 BY ADVS. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR UNNI. K.K. (EZHUMATTOOR) SMT T V NEEMA -SR PP THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31.05.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ..2..
ORDER
This Criminal Miscellaneous Case has been preferred to quash Annexure-I FIR in Crime No. 1314 of 2021 of Koipuram police station on the ground of settlement between the parties.
2. The petitioner is the accused No. 1. The 3rd respondent is the de facto complainant.
3. The offences alleged against the petitioner are punishable under Sections 294(b), 323, 341, 354 and 506 of the IPC.
4. The respondent No. 3 entered appearance through counsel. An affidavit sworn in by her is also produced.
5. I have heard Sri. Prafin Joseph Zacharia, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri. Unni K K, the learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 and Smt. T V Neema, the learned Public Prosecutor.
6. The averments in the petition as well as the affidavit sworn in by the respondent No. 3 would show that the entire dispute between the parties has been amicably settled and the de facto ..3..
complainant has decided not to proceed with the criminal proceedings 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 by 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 the 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-I. The offences in ..4..
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 any further. Accordingly, the Criminal Miscellaneous Case is allowed. Annexure-I FIR in Crime No. 1314 of 2021 of Koipuram police station hereby stands quashed.
The Criminal Miscellaneous Case stands allowed. Sd/- DR.KAUSER EDAPPAGATH, JUDGE RMV/31/05/2022 ..5.. APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 2405/2022 PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure1 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR DATED 19.12.2021ALONG WITH FIS IN CRIME NO.1314/2021 OF KOIPURAM POLICE STATION Annexure2 TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT