Quashed

Pandya Jhalak Chetak v. Nandakumar Varma

Kerala HC22 Nov 2019Crl.MC/5460/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court quashed pending criminal proceedings against the petitioner under Sections 451, 323, 341, and 294(b) of the IPC. The court found that the dispute between the parties had been settled amicably, and continuing the prosecution served no purpose other than wasting court time, applying principles from Supreme Court precedents.

What did the court decide?

The impugned Final Report and all further proceedings arising therefrom pending against the accused will stand quashed.

Pandya Jhalak Chetak Vs Nandakumar Varma — 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

FRIDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF NOVEMBER 2019 / 1ST AGRAHAYANA, 1941

¶5

Crl.MC.No.5460 OF 2019(B)

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC 2394/2017 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -II,THRISSUR

¶7

PETITIONER/S:

¶8

PANDYA JHALAK CHETAK AGED 40 YEARS W/O.BIJU MENON, C-223, BHAVANA TENAMENT, SAHVADI(VASANA), AHAMMEDABAD, GUJARAT.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.V.A.JOHNSON (VARIKKAPPALLIL)

¶10

RESPONDENT/S:

¶11

1 NANDAKUMAR VARMA, AGED 65 YEARS S/O.M.K.THAMBA, SAMPATHAGIRI, SANTHIVIHAR COLONY, KARIYACHIRA, CHIYYARAM, THRISSUR-680006

¶12

2 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031

¶13

3 NANDHITHA VARMA

¶14

AGED 32 YEARS,D/O NANDHAKUMAR,SAPTHAGIRI NIVAS, SANTHI VIHAR,KURIACHIRA P .O., THRISSUR DISTRICT(IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 22/11/19 IN CRL MA 2/19)

¶15

R1, R3 BY ADV. UNNI SEBASTIAN KAPPEN

¶16

OTHER PRESENT:

¶17

SRI.SANTHOSH PETER, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR -R2

¶18

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22.11.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

Crl.MC.No.5460 OF 2019(B)

¶20

::2::

¶21

ALEXANDER THOMAS, J .

¶22

Crl.M.C.No.5460 Of 2019

¶23

Dated this the 22^nd day of November, 2019.

¶24

O R D E R

¶25

The petitioner herein is the sole accused in the impugned Anx-C Final Report in Crime No.747/2017 of Nedupuzha Police Station, Thrissur District, registered for offences punishable under Secs.451, 323, 341 & 294(b) of the I.P.C, which is now pending as C.c.No.2394/2017 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Thrissur. The prosecution allegation is that the accused committed house trespass in to the house of the de facto complainant and manhandled the wife and daughter of the de facto complainant uttering obscene words and thereby she has committed the abovesaid offences. It is stated that now the entire disputes between the petitioner and respondents 1 & 3 have been settled amicably and that respondents 1 & 3 have sworn to Anxs-D & E affidavits before this Court, wherein it is stated that they have settled the entire disputes with the petitioner and that they have no objection for quashment of the impugned criminal proceedings pending against the petitioner. It is in the light of these aspects

¶26

::3::

¶27

Crl.MC.No.5460 OF 2019(B)

¶28

that the petitioner has preferred the instant Crl.M.C. with the prayer to quash the impugned criminal proceedings against her.

¶29

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

¶30

::4::

¶31

Crl.MC.No.5460 OF 2019(B)

¶32

Accordingly, it is ordered in the interest of justice that the impugned Anx-C Final Report in Crime No.747/2017 of Nedupuzha Police Station, Thrissur District, registered for offences punishable under Secs.451, 323, 341 & 294(b) of the I.P.C, which is now pending as C.c.No.2394/2017 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Thrissur and all further proceedings arising therefrom pending against the accused will stand quashed.

¶33

The petitioner will produce certified copies of this order before the investigating officer concerned and the competent court below concerned for necessary information. The office of the Advocate General will forward copy of this order to the investigating officer concerned for information.

¶34

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

¶35

Sd/ALEXANDER THOMAS, Judge.

¶36

bkn/-

¶37

::5::

¶38

Crl.MC.No.5460 OF 2019(B)

¶39

APPENDIX OF Crl.MC 5460/2019

¶40

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶41

ANNEXURE A

¶42

CERTIFIED COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 28.06.2017 FILED BEFORE THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE -II, THRISSUR

¶43

ANNEXURE B

¶44

TRUE COPY OF THE F.I STATEMENT IN CRIME NO.494/2017 OF PALAKKAD TOWN SOUTH POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD

¶45

ANNEXURE C

¶46

CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO.747/2017 OF NEDUPUZHA POLICE STATION, THRISSUR WHICH IS NOW PENDING AS CC NO.2394/2017 OF THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRAE -II, THRISSUR

¶47

ANNEXURE-D THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT EVIDENCING THE FACTUM OF SETTLEMENT.

¶48

ANNEXURE-E

¶49

THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE CW2/ADDL. RESPONDENT NO.3 EVIDENCING THE FACTUM OF SETTLEMENT.

Pandya Jhalak Chetak v. Nandakumar Varma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pandya Jhalak Chetak v. Nandakumar Varma

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

Mohamed Rashid M.P. Vs Fathima K.

Saju Vs the Circle Inspector of Police

Lijo Jose @ Lijo Jose Varghese Vs Station House Officer

Prasad.M.N Vs State of Kerala

Sudharkaran P.C. Vs Rathika K.P.

Sijo Manila Vs Riya