Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH THURSDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 9TH ASHADHA, 1944 PETITIONER/S: ANILKUMAR AGED 56 YEARS ARIKATHIL HOUSE, KUREEKAD PO, CHOTTANIKKARA, ERNAKULAM, NOW RESIDING AT BEAUTY ART BLDG, KEERTHINAGAR ROAD, NEAR SNDP BLDG, ELAMAKKARA PO, KOCHI., PIN - 682026 BY ADVS. CHITHRA R.SHENOY GOPIKA.N.NAIR RESPONDENT/S: 1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031 2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER CHOTTANIKKARA POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT., P IN - 682312 3 VINEETHA, W/O ANILKUMAR AGED 47 YEARS ARIKATHIL HOUSE, GANDHINAGAR, KUREEKAD PO, CHOTTANIKKARA, ERNAKULAM. PIN - 682305 BY ADVS. Rosy P. F. V.M.SYAM KUMAR(K/346/1996) SNEHA RAJIV(K/001710/2018) OTHER PRESENT: SRI SANGEETHA RAJ-PP THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30.06.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This Crl.M.C. has been preferred to quash Annexure A1 Final Report in C.C No.1259/2021 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Chottanikkara on the ground of settlement between the parties.
2. The petitioner is the accused. The 3rd respondent is the de facto complainant.
3. The offence alleged against the petitioner are punishable under Sections 323, 294(b), 506 of IPC and Section 31 of DV Act.
4. The respondent No.3 entered appearance through counsel. An affidavit sworn in by her is also produced.
5. I have heard Sri.Chithra R.Shenoy, the learned counsel for the petitioner, SMT. P.F Rosy, the learned counsel for the respondent No.3 and Sri.Sangeetha Raj, 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 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 A1. 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 A1 Final Report in C.C No.1259/2021 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Chottanikkara hereby stands quashed. Sd/- sab DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH JUDGE APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 3150/2022 PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure A1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE CHARGE SHEET FIELD BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT Annexure A2 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPROMISE AGREEMENT FILED IN MC 8/2020