A single-judge High Court bench quashed criminal proceedings and the final report instituted against the petitioner based on amicable settlement and a sworn affidavit from the complainant stating no further objection to the quashment.
Quashing of the impugned final report/charge sheet (Anx. A-1) and institution of C.C.No. 353/2014 and all further proceedings.
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
WEDNESDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF JUNE 2019 / 29TH JYAISHTA, 1941
Crl.MC.No.1313 of 2019
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC 353/2014 of JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS ,VARKALA
CRIME NO.960/2013 OF Kadakkavoor Police Station , Thiruvananthapuram
PETITIONER/S:
BAISY, AGED 44 YEARS, D/O.RAHIL, BABUVILASOM VEEDU, MULAMUTTAM DESOM, MANAMBOOR VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SRI.P.ANOOP (MULAVANA)
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 682 031.
2 HOWWA UMMAL
AGED 88 YEARS, D/O.RAHUMABEE, BABU VILASOM, KULAMUTTOM DESOM, MANAMBOOR VILLAGE, VARKALA TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT - 695 001.
OTHER PRESENT:
SMT.PRIYA SHANAVAS, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR FOR R1, SRI.A.CHANDRA BABU FOR R2
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19.06.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.
==================
Crl.M.C.No. 1313 of 2019
==================
Dated this the 19th day of June, 2019 O R D E R
The petitioner herein is the accused in the impugned Anx. A-1
final report/charge sheet filed in Crime No. 960/2013 of Kadakkavur Police Station, registered for offences punishable under Secs.294(b), 323 and 188 of the I.P.C, which has led to the institution of C.C.No. 353/2014 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-I, Varkala, on the basis of the complaint of the 2nd respondent. 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. A-2 affidavit before this Court, wherein it is stated that she has settled the entire disputes with the petitioner and that she has no objection for quashment of the impugned criminal proceedings pending against the petitioner. It is in the light of these aspects that the petitioner has preferred the instant Crl.M.C. with the prayer to quash the impugned criminal proceedings against him.
Crl.M.C.1313/19 - : 3 :-
High Court can quash prosecution by exercise of the powers under Sec.482 of the Cr.P.C., if the parties have really settled the whole dispute or if the continuance of the prosecution will not serve any purpose. Here, this Court finds a real case of settlement between the parties and it is also found that continuance of the prosecution in such a 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.
Crl.M.C.1313/19 - : 4 :-
institution of C.C.No. 353/2014 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-I, Varkala and all further proceedings arising therefrom pending against the accused will stand quashed.
The petitioner will produce certified copies of this order before the investigating officer concerned and the competent court below concerned. The office of the Advocate General will forward copy of this order to the investigating officer concerned for information.
With these observations and directions, the above Criminal Miscellaneous Case stands finally disposed of.
sdk+
Sd/- ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE
Crl.M.C.1313/19 - : 5 :-
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
ANNEXURE A1 TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CC 353/2014 OF THE JFCM, VARKALA. ANNEXURE A2 TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the second respondent has genuinely settled the dispute and waived her right to prosecute.
Whether the continuance of prosecution serves any purpose given the settlement.
Whether the High Court can quash the criminal proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in view of the settlement.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Gian Singh v. State of PunjabApplied¶27
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303 · Who else cites this
Narinder Singh and others v. State of PunjabApplied¶27
Narinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab (2014) 6 SCC 466 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
BAISY
STATE OF KERALA
HOWWA UMMAL
ALEXANDER THOMAS
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
ALEXANDER THOMAS
Parties & counsel
