The High Court of Kerala allowed a criminal miscellaneous petition to quash criminal proceedings pending under Sections 324 and 354 of the IPC. The court held that since the dispute was purely personal and parties had amicably settled the matter, proceeding further served no purpose.
Quashing of the Final Report in Crime No.647/2011 and C.C.No.893/2011.
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
THURSDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF JULY 2022 / 23RD ASHADHA, 1944
CRL.MC NO. 2293 OF 2020
CRIME NO.647/2011 OF Parassala Police Station,
Thiruvananthapuram
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC 893/2011 OF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -II,NEYYATTINKARA
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
SHYAM DAS,AGED 35 YEARS, S/O.DHARMADAS, D.S.BHAVAN, PANAYARAYKKAL, PARASUVAIKKAL VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 508.
BY ADV R.V.SREEJITH
RESPONDENTS/STATE & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:
BY ADV SARITHA THOMAS
SMT. T.V. NEEMA, SR. PP
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14.07.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.M.C.No.2293/2020
-:2:-
O R D E R
Dated this the 14th day of July, 2022
This Crl.M.C. has been preferred to quash Annexure II Final Report in Crime No.647/2011 of Parassala Police Station now pending as C.C.No.893/2011 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court II, Neyyatinkara on the ground of settlement between the parties.
Crl.M.C.No.2293/2020
-:3:-
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 she reported that the matter was amicably settled.
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 the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of process of any Court.
Crl.M.C.No.2293/2020
-:4:-
by quashing the proceedings pursuant to Annexure II. 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).
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 Crime No.647/2011 of Parassala Police Station now pending as C.C.No.893/2011 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court II, Neyyatinkara hereby stands quashed.
Sd/-
DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
JUDGE
kp
Crl.M.C.No.2293/2020
-:5:-
APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 2293/2020
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
ANNEXURE I THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.647 OF 2011 OF PARASSALA POLICE STATION DATED 02/07/2011. ANNEXURE II THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT FILED BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT II, NEYYATTINKARA PENDING AS C.C.NO.893 OF 2011. ANNEXURE II THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT FILED BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT II, NEYYATTINKARA PENDING AS C.C.NO.893 OF 2011. ANNEXURE III THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE DEPOSITION GIVEN BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT BEFORE THE COURT BELOW ON 07/11/2018. ANNEXURE IV THE ORIGINAL COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN BEFORE THE NOTARY PUBLIC DATED 07/02/2020.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether criminal proceedings can be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. on account of settlement in offences under Sections 324 and 354 of the IPC.
Whether the settlement between the parties warrants an order to ensure the ends of justice or prevent abuse of process of court.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Shyam Das
State of Kerala
Manju
Dr. Justice Kauser Edappagath
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
