Allowed

Babu, v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC15 Jul 2022Crl.MC/1425/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed this criminal miscellaneous petition to quash the final report in an acquittal matter. The Court held that since the dispute was personal and settled between parties, proceeding further served no purpose and proceeds of justice would be defeated.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Miscellaneous Case is allowed and the Annexure-1 Final Report in SC No.974/2016 is quashed.

Babu, Vs State of Kerala — Quashing and FIR | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 15^TH DAY OF JULY 2022 / 24TH ASHADHA, 1944 CRL.MC NO. 1425 OF 2020

¶5

SC 974/2016 OF ADDL. SESSIONS COURT, KOZHIKODE

¶6

Crime No.163/2015 of Valayam Police Station

¶7

PETITIONER/ACCUSED No.4:

¶8

BABU, AGED 50 YEARS S/O. KANNAN, CHATHOTH HOUSE, CHUZHLI P.O., VALAYAM, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN-673517. BY ADVS. P.N.SUKUMARAN SRI.AKHIL S.VISHNU SHRI.SOORAJ S

¶9

RESPONDENTS/STATE, DE FACTO COMPLAINANT & INJURED:

¶10

1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031.

¶11

2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER, VALAYAM POLICE STATION, VALAYAM, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN-673517.

¶12

3 AJESH, AGED 28 YEARS, S/O. ASHOKAN, PARAYULLAPARAMBATH HOUSE, CHUZHALI P.O., VALAYAM, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN-673517. 4 NITHIN, AGED 22 YEARS, S/O. CHANDRAN, NEELANDUMMAL HOUSE, CHUZHALI P.O., VALAYAM, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN-673517. 5 DEVI, AGED 48 YEARS, W/O. BABU, KALAMKETTIYAPARAMBATH HOUSE, CHUZHALI P.O., VALAYAM, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN-673517. R3 TO R5 BY ADV SRI.JAISON JOSEPH

¶13

OTHER PRESENT:

¶14

SMT T V NEEMA -SR Public Prosecutor

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON

¶16

15.07.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

Crl.M.C.No.1425 of 2020

¶18

..2..

¶19

ORDER

¶20

This Crl.M.C. has been preferred to quash Annexure-1 Final Report in S.C.No.974/2016 on the file of the Additional Sessions Court, Kozhikode on the ground of settlement between the parties.

¶21

The petitioner is the 4^th accused. The remaining accused were already acquitted. The 3^rd respondent is the de facto complainant. The 4^th and 5^th respondents are the injured.

¶22

The offences alleged against the accused are punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 323, 326 and 308 read with Section 149 of the IPC.

¶23

The respondent Nos.3 to 5 entered appearance through counsel. Affidavits sworn in by them are also produced.

¶24

I have heard Sri.P.N.Sukumaran, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri.Jaison Joseph, the learned counsel for the respondent Nos.3 to 5 and Smt.T.V.Neema, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor.

¶25

The averments in the petition as well as the affidavits sworn in by the respondent Nos.3 to 5 would show

¶26

..3..

¶27

Crl.M.C.No.1425 of 2020

¶28

that the entire dispute between the parties has been amicably settled and the de 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 he reported that the matter was amicably settled.

¶29

The Apex Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab [2012 (4) KLT 108 (SC)], Narinder Singh and Others v. State of Punjab 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 ends of justice or to prevent abuse of process of any Court.

¶30

The dispute in the above case is purely personal in nature. No public interest or harmony will be adversely

¶31

Crl.M.C.No.1425 of 2020

¶32

..4..

¶33

affected by quashing the proceedings pursuant to Annexure-1 Final Report in S.C.No.974/2016 on the file of the Additional Sessions Court, Kozhikode. 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).

¶34

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-1 Final Report in S.C.No.974/2016 on the file of the Additional Sessions Court, Kozhikode hereby stands quashed.

¶35

Sd/-

¶36

DR.KAUSER EDAPPAGATH, JUDGE

¶37

skj

¶38

..5..

¶39

Crl.M.C.No.1425 of 2020

¶40

APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 1425/2020

¶41

PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES ANNEXURE 1 TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT SUBMITTED IN CRIME NO.163/2015 OF VALAYAM POLICE STATION. ANNEXURE 2 JUDGMENT IN SC NO.926/2015 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE (FOR THE TRIAL OF CASES RELATING TO ATROCITIES AND SEXUAL VIOLENCE TOWARDS WOMEN AND CHILDREN),KOZHIKODE. ANNEXURE 3 AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT. ANNEXURE 4 AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE FOURTH RESPONDENT. ANNEXURE 5 AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE FIFTH RESPONDENT.

Babu, v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Babu, 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

Abdul Jaleel Vs State of Kerala

Sebastian V.T. @ Jose Vs State of Kerala

Abdul Rahman Vs State of Kerala

Gunseela Vs State of Kerala

Jahfer Sadiq E.A. Vs Marwa

Haris Vs State of Kerala