Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH FRIDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF JULY 2022 / 7TH SRAVANA, 1944 CRL.MC NO. 3231 OF 2022 CRIME NO.321/2022 OF Chandera Police Station, Kasargod PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS. 1 TO 3: 1 RAHEEM AGED 31 YEARS S/O SHAREEF, U.M HOUSE, KAIPAD, PADNE P.O, 2 NASEEMA AGED 43 YEARS D/O ABDUL ASEES, U.M HOUSE, KAIPAD, PADNE P.O, 3 SHAMEEMA.UM AGED 22 YEARS D/O ABDUL KHADER, U.M HOUSE, KAIPAD, PADNE P.O, BY ADVS. P.K.SUBHASH K.REEHA KHADER RESPONDENTS/STATE/COMPLAINANT: -:2:- 1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031 2 RAHMATH U.M AGED 41 YEARS D/O ASEES P.C, SHABANA MANZIL, KAIPAD, PADNE VILLGAE, HOSDURG TALUK, KASARGOD DISTRICT, PIN - BY ADVS. SMT. T.V. NEEMA, SR.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SREEHARI INDUKALADHARAN THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29.07.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: -:3:-
ORDER
Dated this the 29th day of July, 2022 This Crl.M.C. has been preferred to quash all further proceedings pursuant to Annexure A1 FIR in Crime No.321/2022 of Chandera Police Station on the ground of settlement between the parties.
2. The petitioners are the accused Nos. 1 to 3. The 2 nd respondent is the defacto complainant.
3. The offences alleged against the petitioners are punishable under Sections 341, 323, 294(b), 354 read with 34 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. P.K. Subhash, the learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri. Sreehari Indukaladharan, the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 and Smt. T.V. Neema, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor.
6. The averments in the petition as well as the affidavit -:4:-
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 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 -:5:- 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. All further proceedings pursuant to Annexure A1 FIR in Crime No.321/2022 of Chandera Police Station hereby stands quashed.
Sd/- DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH JUDGE kp -:6:- APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 3231/2022 PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure A1 COPY OF THE OF THE F.I.R IN CRIME NO.321 OF 2022 OF CHANDERA POLICE STATION, KASARAGOD DISTRICT Annexure A2 ADDITIONAL REPORT FILED INCORPORATING SECTION 354 IPC TO THE OFFENCE IN FIR Annexure A3 A TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN TO BY THE RESPONDENT NO: 2