Prasanth, vs the State of Kerala, - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1444331
CourtKerala High Court
Decided OnMar-10-2022
Case NumberCrl.MC/447/2022
JudgeHonourable Dr. Justice Kauser Edappagath
AppellantPrasanth,
RespondentThe State of Kerala,
Excerpt:
in the high court of kerala at ernakulampresent the honourable dr. justice kauser edappagath thursday, the 10th day of march 2022 / 19th phalguna, crl.mc no. 447 of 2022 crime no.671/2021 of kondotty police station, malappuram petitioner/accused: prasanth, aged 30 years, s/o. surendran, punnayoor house, ponnani p.o., ezhuvathuruthy, malappuram district-679 577. by adv k.rakesh respondents/state & defacto complainant: 1 the state of kerala, represented by the public prosecutor, high court of kerala, ernakulam, kochi-682 031. 2 the station house officer, kondotty police station, malappuram district pin - 673 638. 3 aswini k.s., aged 23 years, d/o. suguna das p., sopanam, muthuvallor, neerad, kondotty taluk, malappuram district-673 638. by adv smt. t.v.neema - sr.pp sri. k.s.praveen - r3 this criminal misc. case having come up for admission on 10.03.2022, the court on the same day passed the following: ..2..o r d e rdated this the 10th day of march, 2022 this crl.m.c. has been preferred to quash annexure-a fir in crime no.671/2021 of kondotty police station on the ground of settlement between the parties.2. the petitioner is the accused. the 3rd respondent is the de facto complainant.3. the offence alleged against the petitioner are under section 354-d(2) of the ipc.4. the 3rd respondent entered appearance through counsel. an affidavit sworn in by her is also produced.5. i have heard k.s.praveen, the learned counsel for the petitioner, k.s.praveen, the learned counsel for the 3rd respondent and smt.t.v.neema, the learned public prosecutor.6. the averments in the petition as well as theaffidavit sworn in by the 3rd respondent would show that the entire dispute between the parties has been amicably settled and the de facto complainant has decided not to proceed with ..3.. 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-a. ..4.. 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 further. accordingly, the crl.m.c. is allowed. annexure-a fir in crimeno.671/2021 of kondotty police station stands hereby quashed. sd/- dr.kauser edappagath, judge ded/10.03.2022 ..5.. appendix of crl.mc 447/2022 petitioner annexures annexure a certified copy of fir and fis in crime no.671/2021 of kondotty police station dated 30/08/2021. annexure b affidavit sworn to by the 3rd respondent dated 10/01/2022. respondent's/s exhibits : nil. //true copy// p.a. to judge
Judgment:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH THURSDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF MARCH 2022 / 19TH PHALGUNA, CRL.MC NO. 447 OF 2022 CRIME NO.671/2021 OF Kondotty Police Station, Malappuram PETITIONER/ACCUSED: PRASANTH, AGED 30 YEARS, S/O. SURENDRAN, PUNNAYOOR HOUSE, PONNANI P.O., EZHUVATHURUTHY, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-679 577. BY ADV K.RAKESH RESPONDENTS/STATE & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT: 1 THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682 031. 2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, KONDOTTY POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT PIN - 673 638. 3 ASWINI K.S., AGED 23 YEARS, D/O. SUGUNA DAS P., SOPANAM, MUTHUVALLOR, NEERAD, KONDOTTY TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-673 638. BY ADV SMT. T.V.NEEMA - SR.PP SRI. K.S.PRAVEEN - R3 THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10.03.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ..2..

O R D E R

Dated this the 10th day of march, 2022 This Crl.M.C. has been preferred to quash Annexure-A FIR in Crime No.671/2021 of Kondotty Police Station on the ground of settlement between the parties.

2. The petitioner is the accused. The 3rd respondent is the de facto complainant.

3. The offence alleged against the petitioner are under Section 354-D(2) of the IPC.

4. The 3rd respondent entered appearance through counsel. An affidavit sworn in by her is also produced.

5. I have heard K.S.Praveen, the learned counsel for the petitioner, K.S.Praveen, the learned counsel for the 3rd respondent and Smt.T.V.Neema, the learned Public Prosecutor.

6. The averments in the petition as well as the

affidavit sworn in by the 3rd respondent would show that the entire dispute between the parties has been amicably settled and the de facto complainant has decided not to proceed with ..3.. 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-A. ..4.. 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 further. Accordingly, the Crl.M.C. is allowed. Annexure-A FIR in Crime

No.671/2021 of Kondotty Police Station stands hereby quashed. Sd/- DR.KAUSER EDAPPAGATH, JUDGE ded/10.03.2022 ..5.. APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 447/2022 PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure A CERTIFIED COPY OF FIR AND FIS IN CRIME NO.671/2021 OF KONDOTTY POLICE STATION DATED 30/08/2021. Annexure B AFFIDAVIT SWORN TO BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 10/01/2022. RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS : NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE