This criminal miscellaneous petition sought quashing of an FIR under S.482 Cr.P.C. based on a settlement. The court held that being personal in nature and settled amicably, the proceedings due served no purpose and quashed the FIR.
Crl.M.C. No.1951 of 2020 allowed; Annexure A1 FIR in Crime No. 296/2019 quashed.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
WEDNESDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF JULY 2022 / 29TH ASHADHA, 1944
CRL.MC NO. 1951 OF 2020
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
A.P. MARTIN AGED 49 YEARS S/O.A.V.PAUL, ANAMTHURUTHIL HOUSE, CHILAVANOOR ROAD, KADAVANTHARA P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT682020. BY ADVS. VINAY RAMDAS SMT.K.B.ANAMIKA
RESPONDENTS/STATE, DE FACTO COMPLAINANT, OTHER ACCUSED:
1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ERUMAPETTY POLICE STATION (THRISSUR DISTRICT) THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-31. 2 PRIYA P.K., AGED 45 YEARS D/O.KOCHUVAREED, 9A, PMJ TOWERS, VIDHYA NAGAR, BEHIND BHAVANS GIRI NAGAR SCHOOL, KADAVANTHARA P.O., KOCHI-680020. 3 A.P.JOSEPH, AGED 55 YEARS S/O.V.A.PAUL, ANAMTHURUTHIL HOUSE, CHILAVANOOR ROAD, KADAVANTHARA P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT682020. 4 GODWIN LAWRENCE, AGED 50 YEARS FATHERS NAME NOT KNOWN, PARAVARA HOUSE, THRIKKAKKARA P.O- 682021.
Crl.M.C.No.1951 of 2020
..2..
BY ADVS. SRI.S.RAJEEV SRI.S.NIKHIL SANKAR SRI.K.K.DHEERENDRAKRISHNAN SRI.V.VINAY SRI.D.FEROZE SRI.K.ANAND (A-1921)
SRI SANGEETHA RAJ-PP
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20.07.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.M.C.No.1951 of 2020
..3..
O R D E R
This Crl.M.C. has been preferred to quash Annexure A1
FIR in Crime No. 296/2019 of Ernakulam Town South police station on the ground of settlement between the parties.
the petitioner, Sri. S. Rajeev, the learned counsel for the respondent No. 2, Sri. S Nikhil Sankar, the learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 and Sri. Sangeetha Raj, the learned Public Prosecutor.
Crl.M.C.No.1951 of 2020
..4..
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.
Crl.M.C.No.1951 of 2020
..5..
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).
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 A1 FIR in Crime No. 296/2019 of Ernakulam Town South police station hereby stands quashed.
Sd/-
DR.KAUSER EDAPPAGATH, JUDGE
RMV
Crl.M.C.No.1951 of 2020
..6..
APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 1951/2020
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
ANNEXURE A1 A TRUE COPY OF THE F.I.R NO.1110/2017 OF THE ERNAKULAM TOWN SOUTH POLICE STATION DATED 22.07.2017. ANNEXURE A2 A TRUE COPY OF COMMON AWARD OF LOK ADALATH AT ERNAKULAM DATED 04.12.2019. ANNEXURE A3 A TRUE COPY OF ORDER IN CRL.M.C.NO.6364/2019 DATED 16.01.2020.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court can quash criminal proceedings for non-compoundable offences upon settlement between parties under S.482 Cr.P.C.
Whether settlement in a personal dispute prevents abuse of process of court warranting quashing of FIR.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Gian Singh v. State of PunjabFollowed¶29
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab [2012 (4) KLT 108 (SC)]
Narinder Singh and Others v. State of Punjab and OthersFollowed¶29
Narinder Singh and Others v. State of Punjab and Others [(2014) 6 SCC 466] · Who else cites this
State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan and OthersFollowed¶29
State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan and Others [(2019) 5 SCC 688] · Who else cites this
3 provisions across 2 enactments
A.P. MARTIN
STATE OF KERALA
PRIYA P.K.
A.P.JOSEPH
GODWIN LAWRENCE
DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
