High Court quashed criminal proceedings against petitioners (accused) upon acceptance of settlement affidavit filed by the complainant. The Court held continuance of prosecution would serve no purpose.
Impugned complaint in C.C. No. 110/2018 and all further proceedings arising therefrom pending against the accused are 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
WEDNESDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF MAY 2019 / 1ST JYAISHTA, 1941
Crl.MC.No. 1583 of 2019
AGAINST CC 110/2018 of JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -I, MAVELIKKARA
PETITIONER/S:
1 GIGI VARGHESE, AGED 37 YEARS S/O VARGHESE, THARAYIL PUTHENVEETTIL, PALLARIMANGALAM MURI, THEKKEKARA VILLAGE, MAVELIKKARA - 690 107
2 MRS. REENA GIGI AGED 34 YEARS W/O. GIGI VARGHESE, THARAYIL PUTHENVEETTIL, PALLARIMANGALAM MURI, THEKKEKARA VILLAGE, MAVELIKKARA - 690 107
BY ADVS. SRI.SADCHITH.P.KURUP SRI.C.P.ANIL RAJ
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 682 031.
2 ALEYAMMA THOMAS AGED 53 YEARS
W/O. T.M THOMAS, THARAYIL, PALLARIMANGALAM MURI, THEKKEKARA VILLAGE, MAVELIKKARA - 690 107
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI.SAIGI JACOB PALATTY, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR FOR R1, SRI.JOSE ANTONY FOR R2
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22.05.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.M.C.No.1583/2019
2
ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.
Crl.M.C.No. 1583 of 2019
---------------------------------------------Dated this the 22nd day of May, 2019
ORDER
The petitioners herein are the accused in the impugned Anx-AI in C.C.No.110/2018 on the files of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Mavelikkara on the basis of a complaint filed by the 2nd respondent/defacto complainant for the offences under Secs.447, 427, 294(b), 339, 340, 324, 506(2) r/w.34 of IPC. It is stated that now the entire disputes between the petitioners and the 2ndt 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 petitioner has preferred the instant Crl.M.C. with the prayer to quash the impugned criminal proceedings against them.
Crl.M.C.No.1583/2019
3
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 affidavits 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 stands finally disposed of.
sd/-
ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE
acd
Crl.M.C.No.1583/2019
4
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
ANNEXURE A1 COPY OF COMPLAINT IN CC NO. 110/2018 ON THE FILES OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT 1 MAVELIKARA.
ANNEXURE A2 NOTARISED AFFIDAVIT DATED 23.2.2019 EXECUTED BY SECOND RESPONDENT
TRUE COPY
P.S. TO JUDGE.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court can quash criminal proceedings under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C. upon settlement of disputes in gratuity cases.
Whether the settlement affidavit sworn by the complainant is sufficient to quash the complaint in the interest of justice.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Gian Singh v. State of PunjabApplied¶26
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab reported in 2013 (1) SCC (Cri) 160 = (2012) 10 SCC 303 · Who else cites this
Narinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and anr.Applied¶26
Narinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and anr. reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
GIGI VARGHESE
MRS. REENA GIGI
STATE OF KERALA
ALEYAMMA THOMAS
ALEXANDER THOMAS
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
