Allowed

Krishna P Mohan v. Praveen K P

Kerala HC18 Jul 2022Crl.MC/1913/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal miscellaneous case concerned a petition to quash Final Report in a Section 498A IPC offence based on settlement between the de facto complainant and accused parties. The High Court considered Supreme Court precedents allowing quashing of non-compoundable offences in settlement scenarios.

What did the court decide?

Annexure-1 Final Report in Crime No.6/2020 of Viyyur Police Station stood quashed.

Krishna P Mohan Vs Praveen K P — Domestic Violence | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH

¶4

MONDAY, THE 18^TH DAY OF JULY 2022 / 27TH ASHADHA, 1944

¶5

CRL.MC NO. 1913 OF 2022

¶6

Crime No.6/2020 of Viyyur Police Station PETITIONER/DE FACTO COMPLAINANT:

¶7

KRISHNA P MOHAN AGED 25 YEARS DAUGHTER OF MOHANAN, MANEESH NIVAS, RAMAVARMAPURAM, THRISSUR, PIN – 680563

¶8

BY ADV SHAJU PURUSHOTHAMAN

¶9

RESPONDENTS/ACCUSED 1 TO 3 & STATE:

¶10

1 PRAVEEN K P AGED 32 YEARS SON OF PREMAN, KOCHARA HOUSE, ERISSERY PALAM, KODUNGALLUR 2 PREMAN K V, AGED 60 YEARS, SON OF VASU, KOCHARA HOUSE, ERISSERY PALAM, KODUNGALLUR. 3 SHEELA PREMAN, AGED 55 YEARS, WIFE OF PREMAN, KOCHARA HOUSE, ERISSERY PALAM, KODUNGALLUR. 4 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTING THE S.I.OF POLICE, VIYYUR POLICE STATION, THRISSUR DISTRICT. R1 TO R3 BY ADV K.S.RAJESH

¶11

OTHER PRESENT:

¶12

SMT T V NEEMA -SR Public Prosecutor

¶13

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON

¶14

18.07.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

Crl.M.C.No.1913 of 2022

¶16

..2..

¶17

ORDER

¶18

This Crl.M.C. has been preferred to quash Annexure-1 Final Report in Crime No.6/2020 of Viyyur Police Station on the ground of settlement between the parties.

¶19

The petitioner is the de facto complainant. The respondent Nos.1 to 3 are the accused.

¶20

The offence alleged against the accused is punishable under Section 498A of the IPC.

¶21

The respondent Nos.1 to 3/accused entered

¶22

appearance through counsel. Affidavit sworn in by the petitioner/de facto complainant is produced.

¶23

I have heard Sri.Shaju Purushothaman, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri.K.S.Rajesh,the learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 3 and Smt.T.V.Neema, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor.

¶24

The averments in the petition as well as the affidavit sworn in by the petitioner/de facto complainant would show that the entire dispute between the parties has been amicably settled and the de facto complainant has decided not to

¶25

Crl.M.C.No.1913 of 2022

¶26

..3..

¶27

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.

¶28

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.

¶29

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-1 Final Report in Crime No.6/2020 of Viyyur Police Station. The

¶30

Crl.M.C.No.1913 of 2022

¶31

offence in question does 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).

¶32

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 Crime No.6/2020 of Viyyur Police Station hereby stands quashed.

¶33

Sd/-

¶34

DR.KAUSER EDAPPAGATH, JUDGE

¶35

skj

¶36

Crl.M.C.No.1913 of 2022

¶37

..5..

¶38

APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 1913/2022

¶39

PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES

¶40

Annexure 1 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME No.6/2020 OF VIYYUR POLICE STATION BEFORE THE JFCM COURT-I, THRISSUR DTD.1.5.2020 Annexure 2 THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE PETITIONER DTD.16.3.2022

Krishna P Mohan v. Praveen K P

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Krishna P Mohan v. Praveen K P

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

Babu, Vs State of Kerala

Gunseela Vs State of Kerala

Jahfer Sadiq E.A. Vs Marwa

Nishadudeen Vs State of Kerala

Sreedharan, C.NO.1752 Vs State of Kerala

Sasi, C NO.1965, Central Prison, Thiruvananthapuram Vs State of Kerala