High Court of Kerala quashed an FIR against three petitioners accused of offences under Sections 354A, 509, 498A, and 34 of IPC. The court found a real settlement between parties and concluded further prosecution would waste judicial time, citing precedent principles.
Impugned FIR and all further proceedings against accused Nos. 1 to 3 were quashed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS
THURSDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF APRIL 2019 / 21ST CHAITHRA, 1941
Crl.MC.No. 1175 of 2019
CRIME NO. 234/2017 OF Kolathur Police Station , Malappuram
PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO.1 TO 3:
1 ABHILASH AGED 37 YEARS S/O. GOPALAKRISHNAN, PULIVEETIL KALARIKKAL HOUSE, PANG P.O., VIA. KULATHOOR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN679 338. 2 GOPALAKRISHNAN, AGED 61 YEARS S/O. LATE GOVINDA PANICKER, PULIVEETIL KALARIKKAL HOUSE, PANG P.O., VIA. KULATHOOR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-679 338. 3 SHOBHANA, AGED 57 YEARS W/O. GOPALAKRISHNAN, PULIVEETIL KALARIKKAL HOUSE, PANG P.O., VIA. KULATHOOR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN679 338. BY ADV. SRI.SANTHEEP ANKARATH
RESPONDENTS/STATE & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTING STATION HOUSE OFFICER, KOLATHUR POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-679 338. 2 SUSHAMA D/O. SURESH KUMAR, AGED 29 YEARS, AALINKEEZHIL KALARIKKAL HOUSE, PULACHITHARA, VANIYAMKULAM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN-679 522. BY ADV. SRI.J.RAMKUMAR
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI.SAIGI JACOB PALATTY, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR FOR R1, SRI.J.RAMKUMAR FOR R2
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11.04.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.MC.No. 1175 of 2019
2
ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Crl.M.C.No.1175 of 2019
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 11th day of April, 2019
O R D E R
The petitioners herein are accused Nos.1 to 3 in the impugned Anx-A1 FIR in Crime No.234/2017 of Kolathur Police Station, registered for offences punishable under Secs.354A, 509, 498A & 34 of the Indian Penal Code. It is stated that now the entire disputes between the petitioners and the 2nd respondent - defacto complainant have been settled amicably and that the 2nd respondent has sworn to Anx.A2 affidavit before this Court, wherein it is stated that she has settled the entire disputes with the petitioners and that she has no objection for quashment of the impugned criminal proceedings pending against the petitioners. It is in the light of these aspects that the petitioners have preferred the instant Crl.M.C. with the prayer to quash the impugned criminal proceedings against them.
Crl.MC.No. 1175 of 2019
3
situation will not serve any purpose other than wasting the precious time of the court, when the case ultimately comes before the court. On a perusal of the petition and on a close scrutiny of the investigation materials on record and the affidavit of settlement and taking into account the attendant facts and circumstances of this case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the legal principles laid down by the Apex Court in the cases as in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab reported in 2013 (1) SCC (Cri) 160 = (2012) 10 SCC 303 and Narinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and anr . reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466, more particularly paragraph 29 thereof, could be applied in this case to consider the prayer for quashment.
With these observations and directions, the above Criminal Miscellaneous Case will stand finally disposed of.
SD/-
ALEXANDER THOMAS
JUDGE
shg
Crl.MC.No. 1175 of 2019
4
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
ANNEXURE A1: TRUE COPY OF FIRST INFORMATION REPORT DATED 12.11.2017 IN CRIME NO. 234/2017 OF KOLATHUR POLICE STATION.
ANNEXURE A2: AFFIDAVIT DATED 15.12.2018 EXECUTED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court can quash criminal proceedings for non-compoundable offences in light of an amicable settlement between parties.
Whether the continuance of the prosecution serves any purpose given the settlement and affidavit of no objection.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Gian Singh v. State of PunjabApplied¶23
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303 · Who else cites this
Narinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and anrApplied¶23
Narinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and anr (2014) 6 SCC 466 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
ABHILASH
GOPALAKRISHNAN
SHOBHANA
STATE OF KERALA
SUSHAMA
ALEXANDER THOMAS
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
