Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH WEDNESDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF AUGUST 2022 / 9TH BHADRA, 1944 CRL.MC NO. 2783 OF 2022 CRIME NO.404/2019 OF Meppadi Police Station, Wayanad CC 628/2020 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, KALPETTA PETITIONER/ACCUSED: JAMES ROY, AGED 41 YEARS S/O. JOSEPH, D' SOUZA HOUSE, MANKUNNU, MEPPADI P.O., MEPPADI, WAYANAD DISTRICT, PIN - 673577 BY ADVS.MATHEW KURIAKOSE J.KRISHNAKUMAR (ADOOR) RESPONDENTS/VICTIM/STATE:
1 CHRISHMA, AGED 31 YEARS D/O. THOMAS EDWARD, C/O. KHADEEJA, PARIYANGAD HOUSE, MEPPADI P.O., KOTTAPPADI AMSOM, WAYANAD DISTRICT, PIN - 673577 2 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031 BY ADV MONI GEORGE SMT. T.V. NEEMA, SR. PP THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31.08.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: -:2:-
ORDER
Dated this the 31st day of August, 2022 This Crl.M.C. has been preferred to quash Annexure A Final Report in Crime No.404/2019 of Meppadi Police Station now pending as C.C.No.628/2020 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kalpetta on the ground of settlement between the parties.
2. The petitioner is the accused. The 1 st respondent is the defacto complainant.
3. The offences alleged against the petitioner are punishable under Sections 498 A, 323 and 406 of IPC.
4. The respondent No.1 entered appearance through counsel. An affidavit sworn in by her is also produced.
5. I have heard Sri. Mathew Kuriakose, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri. Moni George, 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 -: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 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 -: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 any further. Accordingly, the Crl.M.C. is allowed. Annexure A Final Report in Crime No.404/2019 of Meppadi Police Station now pending as C.C.No.628/2020 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kalpetta hereby stands quashed.
Sd/- DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH JUDGE kp -:5:- APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 2783/2022 PETITIONER ANNEXURES ANNEXURE A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CR.NO.404/2019 FO MEPPADI POLICE STATION IN WAYANAD DISTRICT Annexure B TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO OF EVIDENCE IN CRIME NO. 404/2019 OF MEPPADI POLICE STATION IN WAYANAD DISTRICT Annexure C AFFIDAVIT OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT