Allowed

Renjisekhar v. Adv Pravi Padma Pp

Kerala HC25 Jul 2022Crl.MC/1103/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment allowed a criminal miscellaneous petition seeking quashment of the final report in a case involving allegations under Sections 341, 506(ii), 294(b), 452, and 324 of IPC. The High Court held that since the personal dispute was amicably settled and no public interest was affected, Section 482 of Cr.P.C. warranted quashing the proceedings.

What did the court decide?

The Crl.M.C. is allowed and the Annexure II Final Report in Crime No.45/2018 of Alappuzha Vanitha Police Station hereby stands quashed.

Renjisekhar Vs Adv Pravi Padma Pp — Cheque Dishonour | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

CRL.MC NO. 1103 OF 2022

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH

¶6

MONDAY, THE 25^TH DAY OF JULY 2022 / 3RD SRAVANA, 1944

¶7

CRL.MC NO. 1103 OF 2022

¶8

CRIME NO.45/2018 OF VANITHA POLICE STATION, ALAPPUZHA,

¶9

Alappuzha

¶10

CC 936/2019 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

¶11

CLASS ,AMBALAPUZHA

¶12

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

¶13

RENJISEKHAR, AGED 33 YEARS
D/O.JNANASEKHAR, PUTHENPARAMBU HOUSE,
PATTANAKKAD P.O, CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA,
PIN - 688531
BY ADV N.RAJI

¶14

RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT:

¶15

1ADV PRAVI PADMA PP, AGED 33 YEARS
D/O.PADMANABHAN,
PRIYALAYAM, KODAMTHURUTH, KUTHIATHODE P.O,
CHERTHALA , ALAPPUZHA , PIN - 688533
2STATE OF KERALA
THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, ERNAKULAM., PIN - 682031
3CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE
(CRIME NO 45/2018), ALAPPUZHA VANITHA POLICE
STATION, ALAPPUZHA ., PIN - 688012
BY ADVS.
R1 BY SRI.NAVANEETH.N.NATH
R2 & R3 BY SRI.SANGEETHA RAJ-PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶16

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
25.07.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

CRL.MC NO. 1103 OF 2022

¶18

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

This Crl.M.C. has been preferred to quash Annexure II Final

¶21

Report in Crime No.45/2018 of Alappuzha Vanitha Police Station on

¶22

the ground of settlement between the parties.

¶23

The petitioner is the accused. The 1^st respondent is the de facto complainant.

¶24

The offences alleged against the petitioner are punishable

¶25

under Sections 341, 506(ii), 294(b), 452 and 324 of IPC.

¶26

The respondent No.1 entered appearance through

¶27

counsel. An affidavit sworn in by her is also produced.

¶28

I have heard Sri.N.Raji, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri.Navaneeth N.Nath, the learned counsel for the

¶29

respondent No.1 and Sri.Sangeetha Raj, the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶30

The averments in the petition as well as the affidavit sworn in by the respondent No.1 would show that the entire

¶31

dispute between the parties has been amicably settled and the de

¶32

CRL.MC NO. 1103 OF 2022

¶33

¶34

facto complainant has decided not to proceed with the criminal proceedings further. The learned Prosecutor, on instruction, submits that the matter was enquired into through the investigating officer and a statement of the de facto complainant was also recorded wherein she reported that the matter was amicably settled.

¶35

The Apex Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab [2012

¶36

(4) KLT 108 (SC)], Narinder Singh and Others v. State of Punjab

¶37

and Others [(2014) 6 SCC 466] and in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan and Others [(2019) 5 SCC 688] has held that the High Court by invoking S.482 of Cr.P.C can quash criminal proceedings in relation to non compoundable offence where the parties have settled the matter between themselves notwithstanding the bar under S.320 of Cr.P.C. if it is warranted in the given facts and circumstances of the case or to ensure the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of process of any Court.

¶38

The dispute in the above case is purely personal in nature. No public interest or harmony will be adversely affected by quashing the proceedings pursuant to Annexure II Final Report.

¶39

CRL.MC NO. 1103 OF 2022

¶40

¶41

The offences in question do not fall within the category of offences

¶42

prohibited for compounding in terms of the pronouncement of the Apex Court in Gian Singh (supra), Narinder Singh (supra) and Laxmi Narayan (supra).

¶43

For the reasons stated above, I am of the view that no purpose will be served in proceeding with the matter any further. Accordingly, the Crl.M.C. is allowed. Annexure II Final Report in

¶44

Crime No.45/2018 of Alappuzha Vanitha Police Station hereby

¶45

stands quashed.

¶46

Sd/-

¶47

DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH JUDGE

¶48

¶49

CRL.MC NO. 1103 OF 2022

¶50

¶51

APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 1103/2022

¶52

PETITIONER ANNEXURES

¶53

Annexure - IA CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIRST
INFORMATION REPORT IN CRIME NUMBER
1403 /2018 OF CHERTHALA POLICE STATION
WHICH IS TRANSFERRED AND RENUMBERED AS
CRIME NUMBER 45/2018 OF ALAPPUZHA
VANITHA POLICE STATION
Annexure- IIA CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT
DATED 18/06/2018 IN CRIME NUMBER 45/2018
OF ALAPPUZHA VANITHA POLICE STATION
PENDING AS CC NO 936/2019 ON THE FILES
OF JFMC COURT AMBALAPPUZHA
Annexure-IIIAFFIDAVIT OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT

¶54

RESPONDENTS ANNEXURES: NIL

Renjisekhar v. Adv Pravi Padma Pp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Renjisekhar v. Adv Pravi Padma Pp

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

Biju Vs State of Kerala

Mary Vs State of Kerala

Shameer Vs State of Kerala

Savi Sebastian, Vs State of Kerala

A.Nisha Vs M/S.Maharashtra Apex Corporation Ltd.

Shiju.P.R., Vs the Sub Inspector of Police