Full Judgment
CRL.MC NO. 4918 OF 2022 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH TUESDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF AUGUST 2022 / 8TH BHADRA, 1944 CRL.MC NO. 4918 OF 2022 CRIME NO.9/2019 OF Vellamunda Police Station, Wayanad CC 67/2019 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS I, MANANTHAVADY PETITIONER/ACCUSED: HARRIS, AGED 43 YEARS, S/O MOIDU, AMBILIKKUNNAM HOUSE, THARUVANA P.O, PORUNNANUR, VELLAMUNDA, MANATHAVADY, PIN- 670645. BY ADVS. R.K.PRASANTH T.P.PRADEEP RESPONDENTS: 1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA -682031, PIN - 682031 2 BUSHRA, AGED 37 YEARS, W/O ABHAS, MANKERI HOUSE, PARIYARAMMUKKU, PORUNNANNUR, VELLAMUNDA, MANANTHVADY, WAYANAD, PIN- 670645. R1 BY SRI.P.G.MANU -SR.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR R2 BY ADV AJAI JOHN ADV. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30.08.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: CRL.MC NO. 4918 OF 2022 2
O R D E R
This Crl.M.C. has been preferred to quash Annexure 1 Final Report in C.C.No.67/2019 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court I, Mananthavady 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 294(b) and 506 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.R.K.Prakash, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri.Ajai John, the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 and Sri.P.G.Manu, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor.
6. The averments in the petition as well as the affidavit sworn in by the respondent No.2 would show that the entire CRL.MC NO. 4918 OF 2022 3
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 CRL.MC NO. 4918 OF 2022 4
nature. No public interest or harmony will be adversely affected by quashing the proceedings pursuant to Annexure 1 Final Report. 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 1 Final Report in C.C.No.67/2019 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court I, Mananthavady hereby stands quashed.
Sd/- DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH JUDGE ab CRL.MC NO. 4918 OF 2022 5 APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 4918/2022 PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure1 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT FILED IN CC 67/2019 ON THE FILE OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-I, MANATHAVADY Annexure - 2 A TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE DEFACTO COMPLAINANT DATED 04/07/2022 RESPONDENTS ANNEXURES: NIL