Arun vs State of Kerala - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1533770
CourtKerala High Court
Decided OnFeb-28-2022
Case NumberCrl.MC/5269/2021
JudgeHonourable Dr. Justice Kauser Edappagath
AppellantARUN
RespondentState of Kerala
Excerpt:
in the high court of kerala at ernakulampresent the honourable dr. justice kauser edappagath monday, the 28th day of february 2022/ 9th phalguna, 1943 crl.mc no. 5269 of 2021 crime no.746/2021 of paravoor police station, kollam petitioners/accused no.1 and 2: 1 arun, s/o. prasanna, prasannalayalam veedu, puthenkulam, paravoor, kerala, kollam city, -683 513. 2 prasanna, prasannalayam veedu, puthenkulam, paravoor, kerala, -683 513, kollam. by adv m.r.sasith respondents/defacto complainant: 1 state of kerala, represented by the public prosecutor, high court of kerala, ernakulam, pin-682 031. 2 bineetha, babu nivas, myladumparachery, parippally village, kollam, pin-691 574. 3 the sub inspector, paravoor police station, kollam, pin-683 513. r2 by adv ranjith e n r1 & r3 by smt t v neema -sr.public prosecutor this criminal misc. case having come up for admission on 28.02.2022, the court on the same day passed the following: ..2..orderthis crl.m.c. has been preferred to quash annexure a1 fir in crime no.746/2021 of paravoor police station, kollam district on the ground of settlement between the parties.2. the petitioners are the accused nos.1 and 2. the 2 nd respondent is the de facto complainant.3. the offences alleged against the petitioners are under sections 323, 498a, 506 and 34 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.m.r.sasith, the learned counsel forthe petitioners, sri.ranjith.e.n., the learned counsel for the respondent no.2 and smt.t.v.neema, the learned senior public prosecutor for the respondent nos.1 and 3.6. the averments in the petition as well as in theaffidavit 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, ..3.. 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 a1 fir in crime no.746/2021 of paravoor police station, kollam district. the offences in question do not fall within the ..4.. 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 a1 fir in crime no.746/2021 of paravoor police station, kollam district stands hereby quashed. sd/- dr.kauser edappagath, judge skj ..5.. appendix of crl.mc 5269/2021 petitioners' annexures annexure a1 the true copy of the fir registered by the 3rd respondent. annexure a2 true copy of the affidavit sworn by the 2nd respondent.
Judgment:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH MONDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022/ 9TH PHALGUNA, 1943 CRL.MC NO. 5269 OF 2021 CRIME No.746/2021 OF PARAVOOR POLICE STATION, KOLLAM PETITIONERS/ACCUSED No.1 AND 2: 1 ARUN, S/O. PRASANNA, PRASANNALAYALAM VEEDU, PUTHENKULAM, PARAVOOR, KERALA, KOLLAM CITY, -683 513. 2 PRASANNA, PRASANNALAYAM VEEDU, PUTHENKULAM, PARAVOOR, KERALA, -683 513, KOLLAM. BY ADV M.R.SASITH RESPONDENTS/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT: 1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN-682 031. 2 BINEETHA, BABU NIVAS, MYLADUMPARACHERY, PARIPPALLY VILLAGE, KOLLAM, PIN-691 574. 3 THE SUB INSPECTOR, PARAVOOR POLICE STATION, KOLLAM, PIN-683 513. R2 BY ADV RANJITH E N R1 & R3 BY SMT T V NEEMA -SR.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28.02.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ..2..

ORDER

This Crl.M.C. has been preferred to quash Annexure A1 FIR in Crime No.746/2021 of Paravoor Police Station, Kollam District on the ground of settlement between the parties.

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

3. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 323, 498A, 506 and 34 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.M.R.Sasith, the learned counsel for

the petitioners, Sri.Ranjith.E.N., the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 and Smt.T.V.Neema, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor for the respondent Nos.1 and 3.

6. The averments in the petition as well as in 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, ..3.. 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 A1 FIR in Crime No.746/2021 of Paravoor Police Station, Kollam District. The offences in question do not fall within the ..4.. 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 A1 FIR in Crime No.746/2021 of Paravoor Police Station, Kollam District stands hereby quashed. Sd/- DR.KAUSER EDAPPAGATH, JUDGE skj ..5.. APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 5269/2021 PETITIONERS' ANNEXURES Annexure A1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE FIR REGISTERED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. Annexure A2 TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.