Roy vs State of Kerala

ROY vs State of Kerala

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Jul 18, 2022

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1491169

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1491169
Court: Kerala High Court
Judge: Honourable Dr. Justice Kauser Edappagath
Decided On: Jul 18, 2022
Case Number: Crl.MC/3893/2022

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

ROY

Respondent

State of Kerala

Excerpt

.....preferred to quash further proceedings pursuant to annexure a2 final report in crime no.464/2021 of mala police station on the ground of settlement between the parties.2. the petitioners are the accused nos. 1 and 2. the 3 rd respondent is the defacto complainant.3. the offences alleged against the petitioners are punishable under sections 498 a 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. n.v.p. rafeeque, the learned counsel for the petitioner/petitioners, smt.prajisha m., 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 -:4:- de facto complainant has decided not to proceed with thecriminal 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 a2. the -:5:-offences in question.....

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH MONDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF JULY 2022 / 27TH ASHADHA, 1944 CRL.MC NO. 3893 OF 2022 CRIME NO.464/2021 OF Mala Police Station, Thrissur CC 1080/2021 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, CHALAKUDY PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 & 2: 1 ROY AGED 29 YEARS S/O THOMAS, MALIYEKKAL KOONAN (H) PUTHENCHIRA, THRISSUR DISTRICT PIN - 680682 2 POULLY, AGED 56 YEARS W/O THOMAS, MALIYEKKAL KOONAN (H) PUTHENCHIRA, THRISSUR DISTRICT PIN - 680682 BY ADV N.V.P.RAFEEQUE RESPONDENTS/STATE & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED PUBLIC PROCECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, KOCHIN, PIN - 682031 2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER MALA POLICE STATION, MALA POLICE STATION, THRISSUR, PIN - 680732 -:2:- 3 ALFIYA AGED 22 YEARS W /O ROY, D/O JOSE, MELEDATH (H), BALUSSERY P.O KOZHIKODE DISTRICT , PIN - 673612 BY ADVS. SMT. T.V. NEEMA, SR. PP SMT.PRAJISHA M.

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18.07.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: -:3:-

ORDER

Dated this the 18th day of July, 2022 This Crl.M.C. has been preferred to quash further proceedings pursuant to Annexure A2 Final Report in Crime No.464/2021 of Mala Police Station on the ground of settlement between the parties.

2. The petitioners are the accused Nos. 1 and 2. The 3 rd respondent is the defacto complainant.

3. The offences alleged against the petitioners are punishable under Sections 498 A 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. N.V.P. Rafeeque, the learned counsel for the petitioner/petitioners, Smt.Prajisha M., 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 -:4:- 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 A2. The -:5:-

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. Further proceedings pursuant to Annexure A2 Final Report in Crime No.464/2021 of Mala Police Station hereby stands quashed. Sd/- DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH JUDGE kp -:6:- APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 3893/2022 PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure A1 A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO Annexure A2 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE CHARGE SHEET AND FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO 464/2021 OF MALA POLICE STATION Annexure3 THE ORIGINAL AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT

Same Court & Year Kerala · 2022 Same Parties ROY vs State of Kerala Same Judge Honourable Dr. Justice Kauser Edappagath