Allowed

Savi Sebastian, v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC25 Jul 2022Crl.MC/1394/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the criminal miscellaneous petition to quash criminal proceedings filed against petitioners. The matter involved a personal dispute settled between parties, rendering further criminal proceedings unnecessary despite allegations under non-compoundable offences.

What did the court decide?

The Crl.M.C. is allowed and the Annexure A4 Final Report in C.C.No.30/2020 is hereby quashed.

Savi Sebastian, Vs State of Kerala — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

CRL.MC NO. 1394 OF 2021

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
MONDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF JULY 2022 / 3RD SRAVANA, 1944

¶6

CRL.MC NO. 1394 OF 2021

¶7

CRIME NO.953/2019 OF Town East Police Station, Thrissur CC 30/2020 OF CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE ,THRISSUR

¶8

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED:

¶9

1 SAVI SEBASTIAN, AGED 50 YEARS S/O. SEBASTIAN, CHIRIYANKANDATH HOUSE, KANDANNUR DESOM, CHITTANDA VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680 590

¶10

2 BIJU, AGED 50 YEARS

¶11

S/O. ANTONY, VADAKKAN HOUSE, CHITTILAPPILLY DESOM, CHITTILAPPILLY VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680 545 BY ADVS.

¶12

C.P.PEETHAMBARAN
SMT.MINI.V.A.

¶13

RESPONDENTS:

¶14

1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031

¶15

2 SMITHA, AGED 41 YEARS, D/O.LATE MATHEW, KALLUVEETIL HOUSE, CHEMBUKAVU DESOM, CHEMBUKAVU VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680 020

¶16

R1 BY SRI.P.G.MANU -SR.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR R2 BY ADV Chacko C A

¶17

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

¶18

CRL.MC NO. 1394 OF 2021

¶19

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

This Crl.M.C. has been preferred to quash Annexure A4 Final Report in C.C.No.30/2020 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate

¶22

Court, Thrissur on the ground of settlement between the parties.

¶23

The petitioners are the accused Nos.1 and 2. The 2^nd respondent is the de facto complainant.

¶24

The offences alleged against the petitioners are punishable

¶25

under Sections 341, 323, 498A, 406, 427 and 506 r/w 34 of IPC.

¶26

The respondent No.2 entered appearance through counsel. An affidavit sworn in by her is also produced.

¶27

I have heard Sri.C.P.Peethambaran, the learned counsel for

¶28

the petitioners, Sri.C.A.Chacko, the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 and Sri.P.G.Manu, the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶29

The averments in the petition as well as the affidavit sworn in by the respondent No.2 would show that the entire dispute between the parties has been amicably settled and the de facto

¶30

CRL.MC NO. 1394 OF 20213

¶31

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.

¶32

The Apex Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab [2012 (4) KLT 108 (SC)], Narinder Singh and Others v. State of Punjab and

¶33

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

¶34

the case or to ensure the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of process of any Court.

¶35

The dispute in the above case is purely personal in nature.

¶36

No public interest or harmony will be adversely affected by quashing

¶37

CRL.MC NO. 1394 OF 20214

¶38

the proceedings pursuant to Annexure A4. The offences in question do not fall within the category of offences prohibited for compounding in terms of the pronouncement of the Apex Court in Gian Singh (supra), Narinder Singh (supra) and Laxmi Narayan (supra).

¶39

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 A4 Final Report in C.C.No.30/2020 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Thrissur hereby stands quashed.

¶40

Sd/-

¶41

DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH JUDGE

¶42

ab

¶43

CRL.MC NO. 1394 OF 2021

¶44

¶45

APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 1394/2021

¶46

PETITIONER ANNEXURES

¶47

ANNEXURE A1CERTIFIED COPY OF CMPNO. 6063/2019 FILED
BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT (DE FACTO
COMPLAINANT)BEFORE THE CHIEF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE COURT, THRISSUR.
ANNEXURE A2CERTIFIED COPY OF FIR IN CRIME NO.
953/2019 OF THRISSUR EAST POLICE STATION.
ANNEXURE A3CERTIFIED COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF
WITNESSES RECORDED UNDER SECTION 161
CR.PC.
ANNEXURE A4CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN C.C.
NO. 30/2020 OF CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE
COURT, THRISSUR.

¶48

RESPONDENTS ANNEXURES: NIL

Savi Sebastian, v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Savi Sebastian, 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

Biju Vs State of Kerala

Mary Vs State of Kerala

Shameer Vs State of Kerala

Renjisekhar Vs Adv Pravi Padma Pp

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

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