Vipin @ Vipin Kumar vs State of Kerala

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Oct 25, 2022

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1551654

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/1551654
Court: Kerala High Court
Judge: Honourable Dr. Justice Kauser Edappagath
Decided On: Oct 25, 2022
Case Number: Crl.MC/7049/2022

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Vipin @ Vipin Kumar

Respondent

State of Kerala

Excerpt

.....the learned senior public prosecutor.6. the averments in the petition as well as the affidavitsworn in by the respondent no.2 would show that the entire crl.mc no. 7049 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 punjaband 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 notwithstandingthe bar under s.320 of cr.p.c. if it is warranted in the given factsand circumstances of the case or to ensure the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of process of any court. crl.mc no. 7049 of 2022 48. the dispute in the above case is purely personal innature. no public interest or harmony will be adversely affected by quashing the proceedings pursuant to annexure ii final report. the offence in question does 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 ii final report in crime no.100/2019 of nattukal police station, palakkad hereby stands quashed. sd/- dr. kauser edappagath judge ab crl.mc no. 7049 of 2022 5 appendix of crl.mc 7049/2022 petitioner annexures annexure i.....

Full Judgment

CRL.MC NO. 7049 OF 2022 1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH TUESDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2022 / 3RD KARTHIA, 1944 CRL.MC NO. 7049 OF 2022 CRIME NO.100/2019 OF Nattukal Police Station, Palakkad CC 483/2019 OF MUNSIFF MAGISTRATE COURT,MANNARKAD PETITIONERS/ACCUSED:

1 VIPIN @ VIPIN KUMAR, AGED 31 YEARS S/O.KUMARAN, MAARICHIPARAMBIL HOUSE, KANNAMKUNDU, ALANALLUR, NATTUKAL, PALAKKAD, PIN - 678554 2 KUMARAN, AGED 68 YEARS S/O.KUTTAN CHETTIYAR, MAARICHIPARAMBIL HOUSE, KANNAMKUNDU, ALANALLUR, NATTUKAL, PALAKKAD, PIN - 678554 3 VENNILA, AGED 48 YEARS W/O.KUMARAN, MAARICHIPARAMBIL HOUSE, KANNAMKUNDU, ALANALLUR, NATTUKAL, PALAKKAD, PIN - 678554 BY ADVS. T.K.SANDEEP VEENA HARIKUMAR

RESPONDENTS:

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031 2 ROHINI, AGED 28 YEARS D/O.SASIDHARAN, R/AT "SIVAGANGA", PUTHAN VEEDU, DEVI NAGAR, KONGAD P.O. PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678631 R1 BY SMT.T.V.NEEMA-SR.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR R2 BY ADV SWETHA R. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION

ON 25.10.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: CRL.MC NO. 7049 OF 2022 2

O R D E R

This Crl.M.C. has been preferred to quash Annexure II Final Report in Crime No.100/2019 of Nattukal Police Station, Palakkad on the ground of settlement between the parties.

2. The petitioners are the accused Nos.1 to 3. The 2nd respondent is the de facto complainant.

3. The offence alleged against the petitioners are punishable under Section 498A r/w 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.T.K.Sandeep, the learned counsel for the petitioners, Smt.Swetha.R, 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

sworn in by the respondent No.2 would show that the entire CRL.MC NO. 7049 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. CRL.MC NO. 7049 OF 2022 4

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 II Final Report. The offence in question does 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 II Final Report in Crime No.100/2019 of Nattukal Police Station, Palakkad hereby stands quashed. Sd/- DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH JUDGE ab CRL.MC NO. 7049 OF 2022 5 APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 7049/2022 PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure I CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.100/2019 REGISTERED BY NATTUKAL POLICE DATED 11.05.2019 Annexure II CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO.100/2019 REGISTERED BY NATTUKAL POLICE DATED 11.05.2019 ALONGWITH THE WITNESS LIST Annexure III TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT DATED 26.09.2022 SWORN IN BY 2ND RESPONDENT RESPONDENTS ANNEXURES: NIL

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