Petition filed by an accused to quash criminal proceedings in a case involving attempts to cause death, arising from a marital dispute, which had been amicably settled between the parties.
Quashed the First Information Report, final report, and all further proceedings in the criminal case pending against the petitioner.
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.
CRL.MC NO. 1009 OF 2021
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHIRCY V.
THURSDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2021 / 18TH AGRAHAYANA, 1943
CRL.MC NO. 1009 OF 2021
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN SC 111/2020 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS COURT,MOOVATTUPUZHA
PETITIONER/ACCUSED
SREEKUMAR P.P. AGED 35 YEARS S/O. LATE PARAMESWARAN, PUTHANPURAYIL HOUSE, VALAKAM VILLAGE, MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT682 316. BY ADVS. GEORGE MATHEW SHRI.PRAVEEN S. SHRI.SUNIL KUMAR A.G SRI.DIPU JAMES SHRI.MATHEW K.T. SHRI.GEORGE K.V.
RESPONDENTS/STATE AND DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:
2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER MUVATTUPUZHA POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-686 661, THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031.
3 PRAJEESHA K AGED 36 YEARS D/O. LATE KESHAVAN, ABHILASH MANDIRAM, VELUR, VELUR P.O., TALAPPILLI TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680 601.
5 PRASANNA AGED 62 YEARS W/O. LATE KESHAVAN, ABHILASH MANDIRAM, VELUR, VELUR P.O., TALAPPILLI TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680 60. BY ADVS.
CRL.MC NO. 1009 OF 2021
2
ADDL.DIRECTOR GENERAL OF PROSECUTION ELSA DENNY PINDIS
OTHER PRESENT:
C.K.SURESH -SR.PP
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09.12.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
CRL.MC NO. 1009 OF 2021
3
ORDER
Petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure.
the case has been instituted by the defacto complainant on some misunderstanding with the petitioner and now the parties have resolved the entire dispute among themselves and as such there is no subsisting dispute between them. Therefore, this petition to quash the Annexure A1 FIR in Crime No.2050 of 2019 and Annexure A2 final report and all further proceedings in S.C.No.111 of 2020 on the files of Addl.District and Sessions Court, Muvattupuzha.
4
CRL.MC NO. 1009 OF 2021
303) the Apex Court held that heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity etc cannot be quashed on the ground of settlement.
In State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan and others [2019 (2) KHC 190] the Apex Court relying on Gian singh's case (supra) and Narinder Singh 's case [(2014) 6 SCC 466] held that an offence under S.307 IPC would fall in the category of heinous
5
CRL.MC NO. 1009 OF 2021
and serious offence and therefore generally it is to be treated as crime against the society and not against the individual alone. It would be open to the High Court to examine as to whether incorporation of S.307 IPC is there for the sake of it or the prosecution has collected sufficient evidence which if proved, would lead to framing the charge on the basis of the nature of injury sustained, whether such injury is inflicted on the vital/delegate parts of the body, nature of weapons used etc. But such exercise would be permissible only after evidence is collected during trial. Still the observation in para 29.4 of Narinder Singh 's case (supra) that cases arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes should be quashed when the parties have resolved their entire disputes among themselves has been reiterated and held as such.
CRL.MC NO. 1009 OF 2021
6
purpose is likely to be served. Moreover, no public interest is involved in the case and there is no legal impediment in granting the prayer as sought for by the petitioner. Therefore, to subserve the ends of justice, this Crl.M.C. is only to be allowed.
For the foregoing reasons, Annexure A1 FIR and A2 final report in Crime No.2050 of 2019 of Muvattupuzha police station and all further proceedings in S.C.No.111 of 2020 on the files of Addl.District and Sessions Court, Muvattupuzha will stand quashed as prayed for.
Sd/-
SHIRCY V.
JUDGE
smm
CRL.MC NO. 1009 OF 2021
7
APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 1009/2021
PETITIONER ANNEXURE
ANNEXURE A1 CERTIFIED COPY OF FIRST INFORMATION REPORT (FIR) ALONG WITH FIRST INFORMATION STATEMENT DATED 1.8.2019. ANNEXURE A2 CERTIFIED COPY OF FINAL REPORT DATED 25.10.2019 IN CR.NO.2050 OF 2019 OF MUVATTUPUZHA POLICE STATION. ANNEXURE A3 CERTIFIED COPY OF DECREE IN O.P.NO.1832 OF 2019 DATED 13.11.2020 OF FAMILY COURT, THRISSUR. ANNEXURE A4 AFFIDAVIT DATED 11.2.2021 SWORN TO BY 3RD RESPONDENT. ANNEXURE A5 AFFIDAVIT DATED 11.2.2021 SWORN TO BY 4TH RESPONDENT.
2 issues framed by the court
whether a case under Section 307 IPC arising out of a matrimonial dispute can be quashed upon settlement between the parties
whether the inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 CrPC can be exercised to quash proceedings in a serious offence case where the dispute is amicably resolved
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Gian Singh v. State of PunjabReferred¶36
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012(10) SCC 303) · Who else cites this
State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan and othersFollowed¶38
State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan and others [2019 (2) KHC 190]
Narinder Singh v. State of NCT of DelhiRelied on¶38
Narinder Singh 's case [(2014) 6 SCC 466] · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
SREEKUMAR P.P.
STATE OF KERALA
PRAJEESHA K
PRASANNA
SHIRCY V.
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
