Quashed

Nisha.K.G v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC6 Aug 2019Crl.MC/4654/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court quashed criminal proceedings against the petitioner for offences under the IPC. Relying on the Apex Court's precedent, the Court found that a real settlement existed between the parties and continuing the prosecution would serve no purpose other than wasting judicial time.

What did the court decide?

The impugned final report/charge sheet and all further proceedings arising therefrom pending against the accused are quashed.

Nisha.K.G Vs State of Kerala — Quashing and FIR | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 06TH DAY OF AUGUST 2019 / 15TH SRAVANA, 1941

¶5

Crl.MC.No.4654 OF 2018

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN ST 33/2017 OF GRAMA NYAYALAYA COURT, KATTAPPANA, IDUKKI.

¶7

CRIME NO.807/2017 OF UPPUTHARA POLICE STATION, IDUKKI

¶8

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

¶9

NISHA.K.G AGED 31 YEARS D/O. JANARDHANAN, KOCHANIMOOTTIL HOUSE, PALAKKAVU, MATHAYIPPARA, UPPUTHARA VILLAGE, UPPUTHARA, IDUKKI (DIST).

¶10

BY ADV. SMT.K.DEEPA (PAYYANUR)

¶11

RESPONDENTS/STATE/DE FACTO COMPLAINANT:

¶12

1 STATE OF KERALA REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-31.

¶13

2 PUSHPAVALLI 56 YEARS, W/O. JANARDHANAN, KOCHANIMOOTTIL HOUSE, PALAKKAVU, MATHAYIPPARA, UPPUTHARA VILLAGE, UPPUTHARA, IDUKKI (DIST) PIN 663 115.

¶14

BY ADV. SMT.A.A.SHIBI

¶15

SMT.PRIYA SHANAVAS, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶16

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06.08.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

Crl.MC.No.4654 OF 2018

¶18

¶19

ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.

¶20

===========================

¶21

Crl.M.C.No.4654 of 2018

¶22

=========================== Dated this the 06^th day of August, 2019

¶23

O R D E R

¶24

The petitioner herein has been arrayed as the sole accused in S.T.No.33/2017 of the Grama Nyayalaya Court, Kattappana, which arose from Annexure-I FIR in Crime No.807/2017 of Upputhara Police Station, Idukki, which has been registered for offences punishable under Secs.294(b), 323, 324 & 34 of the IPC, which has led to the institution of Annexure-II final report. It is stated that now the entire disputes between the petitioner herein and the 2^nd respondent de facto complainant have been settled amicably and that the 2^nd respondent has sworn to 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 her.

¶25

In a catena of decisions, the Apex Court has held that, in appropriate cases involving even non-compoundable offences, the High

¶26

Crl.MC.No.4654 OF 2018

¶27

¶28

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.

¶29

Accordingly, it is ordered in the interest of justice that the impugned Annexure-II final report/charge sheet filed in Annexure-I FIR in Crime No.807/2017 of Upputhara Police Station, Idukki, which has led to the pendency of S.T.No.33/2017 on the file of Grama Nyayalaya, Kattappana and all further proceedings arising therefrom pending against

¶30

Crl.MC.No.4654 OF 2018

¶31

¶32

the accused will stand quashed.

¶33

The petitioner will produce certified copies of this order to the Investigating Officer concerned and the competent court below concerned. Office of Advocate General will forward a copy of this order to the Investigating Officer concerned, for necessary information.

¶34

With these observations and directions, the above Criminal Miscellaneous Case stands finally disposed of.

¶35

Sd/-

¶36

ALEXANDER THOMAS JUDGE

¶37

vgd

¶38

Crl.MC.No.4654 OF 2018

¶39

¶40

APPENDIX

¶41

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶42

ANNEXURE 1 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR OF CRIME NO. 807/2017 OF THE UPPUTHARA POLICE STATION, IDUKKI

¶43

ANNEXURE II CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT OF CRIME NO. 807/2017 OF THE UPPUTHARA POLICE STATION, IDUKKI

¶44

ANNEXURE III TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 17-07-2014 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF RADIOTHERAPY MEDICAL COLLEGE HOSPITAL, KOTTAYAM.

¶45

ANNEXURE IV TRUE COPY OF THE MEDICAL CERTIFICATE DATED 24-12-2017 OF THE PETITIONER ISSUED FROM THE TALUK HEAD QUARTERS HOSPITAL, THRIPPUNITHURA.

¶46

ANNEXURE V TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 24-12-2017 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE UPPUTHARA POLICE STATION, IDUKKI.

¶47

ANNEXURE VI TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 11-01-2018 ISSUED BY DR. K.E SEBASTIAN REFERRING THE DE-FACTO COMPLAINANT TO A PSYCHIATRIST.

Nisha.K.G v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nisha.K.G v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

George Abraham Vs Prince Abraham George ( Minor)

George Abraham Vs Prince Abraham George (Minor)

Shaji. R.P. Vs Soudha.K.

Alankottu Rashid, Vs Naseena T.V.

Biju Antony, Vs Mohammed Y.Safirullah

Sreelesh, Vs State of Kerala