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 CRL.MC NO.3967 OF 2022 CRIME NO.974/2022 OF Thiruvalla Police Station, Pathanamthitta PETITIONER/ACCUSED: SUDHEESH KUMAR AGED 43 YEARS S/O CHOTHAN, RESIDING AT MURIGOORKUNNIL HOUSE, NIZHLBHAGOM, THOTTABHAGOM P.O. KAVIYOOR, THIRUVALLA, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN - 689541 BY ADV K.N.RADHAKRISHNAN(THIRUVALLA) RESPONDENTS/STATE & DE FACTO COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY STATION HOUSE OFFICER, THIRUVALLA POLICE STATION, THIRUVALLA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULUM, PIN - 682031 2 DIVYA R. PILLAI AGED 39 YEARS W/O MOHANAN, MYLADUMPARA HOUSE, VALLAMKULAM P.O., ERAVIPEEROOR VILLAGE, THIRUVALLA TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN - 689541 R1 BY SR. Public Prosecutor SRI.P.G.MANU R2 BY SRI.R.KISHORE THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 30.06.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ..2..
ORDER
This Crl.M.C. has been preferred to quash Annexure-1 FIR in Crime No.974/2022 of Thiruvalla Police Station on the ground of settlement between the parties.
2. The petitioner is the accused. The 2nd respondent is the de facto complainant.
3. The offences alleged against the petitioner are punishable under Sections 341, 294(b), 354 and 326 of the IPC.
4. The respondent No.2 entered appearance through counsel. An affidavit sworn in by her is also produced.
5. I have heard Sri.K.N.Radhakrishnan, the learned
counsel for the petitioner, Sri.R.Kishore, the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 and Sri.P.G.Manu, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor for the respondent No.1.
6. The averments in the petition as well as the affidavit
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 ..3.. 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 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-1 FIR in Crime No.974/2022 of Thiruvalla Police Station. The offences in question do not fall within the category of offences ..4.. 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-1 FIR in Crime No.974/2022 of Thiruvalla Police Station hereby stands quashed. Sd/- DR.KAUSER EDAPPAGATH, JUDGE skj ..5.. APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 3967/2022 PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES Annexure 1 THE COPY OF FIR IN CRIME NO. 974 OF 2022 DATED 22.05.2022 OF THE THIRUVALLA POLICE STATION Annexure 2 THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT DATED 14.06.2022