Hinduja vs State of Kerala

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Jan 24, 2022

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1552433

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/1552433
Court: Kerala High Court
Judge: Honourable Dr. Justice Kauser Edappagath
Decided On: Jan 24, 2022
Case Number: Crl.MC/6031/2021

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Hinduja

Respondent

State of Kerala

Excerpt

.....crl.m.c. has been preferred to quash annexure ai fir in crime no. 1049/2021 of kollam east police station on the ground of settlement between the parties.2. the petitioners are the accused nos.1 to 5. the second respondent is the defacto complainant.3. the offences alleged against the petitioners are under sections 508, 417,420, 323, 324,384,385,386 r/w section 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. jomy k.jose, the learned counsel for the petitioners, sri. vishnu vijayan, the learned counsel for the respondent no.2 and smt.t.v.neema, the learned public prosecutor.6. the averments in the petition as well as the affidavitsworn 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 crime 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 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 innature. no public interest or harmony will be adversely affected by quashing the proceedings pursuant to annexure ai fir in crime no. 1049/2021 of kollam east police.....

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH MONDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF JANUARY 2022 / 4TH MAGHA, 1943 (CRIME NO.1049/2021 OF KOLLAM EAST POLICE STATION, KOLLAM DISTRICT). PETITIONERS/ACCUSED:

1 HINDUJA AGED 31 YEARS C/O. S.SREEDHARAN, CHARUVILA PUTHEN VEEDU, PUNUKKANNOOR, ALUMMOODU P.O, KOTTAMKARA, KOLLAM CITY, KERALA 691 577 2 LEKSHMIKUTTY AGED 53 YEARS D/O. KOCHUKUNJU, CHARUVILA PUTHEN VEEDU, PUNUKKANNOOR, ALUMMOODU P.O, KOTTAMKARA, KOLLAM CITY, KERALA 691 577 3 KRISHNARAJ AGED 43 YEARS S/O. MANI, KRISHNA KRIPA KOVILMUKKU, PUNNUKKANNOOR, PERUMPUZHA P.O, KOTTAMKARA, KOLLAM,KERALA 691 504 4 S. SREEDHARAN AGED 58 YEARS S/O. SANKARAN, CHARUVILA PUTHEN VEEDU, PUNUKKANNUR, ALUMMOODU P.O, KOTTAMKARA, KOLLAM 691 577 5 THAPASYA AGED 28 YEARS D/O. S. SREEDHARAN, CHARUVILA PUTHEN VEEDU, PUNNUKKANNOOR, ALUMMOODU P.O, KOTTAMKARA, KOLLAM CITY, KERALA 691 577 BY ADV JOMY K. JOSE

RESPONDENTS/STATE: 1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM 682 031 2 SREEDEVI AGED 60 YEARS W/O. JAYACHANDRA PANICKER, RESIDING AT 39A, NAVAJYOTHI NAGAR, KOLLAM EAST, ULIYAKOVIL, KOLLAM SRI.VISHNU VIJAYAN - R2 OTHER PRESENT: SMT T V NEEMA- SR PP THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24.01.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER

This Crl.M.C. has been preferred to quash Annexure AI FIR in Crime No. 1049/2021 of Kollam East Police Station on the ground of settlement between the parties.

2. The petitioners are the accused Nos.1 to 5. The second respondent is the defacto complainant.

3. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 508, 417,420, 323, 324,384,385,386 r/w Section 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. Jomy K.Jose, the learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri. Vishnu Vijayan, the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 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.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 crime 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 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 AI FIR in Crime No. 1049/2021 of Kollam East Police Station. 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 further. Accordingly, the Crl.M.C. is allowed. Annexure AI FIR in Crime No. 1049/2021 of Kollam East Police Station stands hereby quashed. Sd/- DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH JUDGE al/- APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 6031/2021 PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure A1 FIR IN CRIME NO. 1049 OF 2021 OF KOLLAM EAST POLICE STATION, KOLLAM DISTRICT. Annexure A2 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN TO BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT ENDORSING THE FACTUM OF COMPOUNDING OF THE SAID OFFENCES AND THE SETTLEMENT OF THE DISPUTES.

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