Allowed

Sajeev v. the Station House Officer

Kerala HC19 Dec 2022Crl.MC/2835/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought quashing of Final Report in matrimonial sexual offence case based on settlement. Court found dispute personal and no public interest compromised. Criminal proceedings quashed under Section 482 CrPC following Apex Court precedents.

What did the court decide?

Annexure-3 Final Report in C.P. 23/2022 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court (for trial of forest offences) Nedumangad stands quashed.

Sajeev Vs the Station House Officer — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH

¶4

MONDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2022 / 28TH AGRAHAYANA, 1944
CRL.MC NO. 2835 OF 2021

¶5

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

¶6

SAJEEV
AGED 46 YEARS
S/O.SADASIVAN, NABHAS, NADUVATTHU MURI, PARAPPARA
P.O, CHAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695551.

¶7

BY ADV V.A.VINOD

¶8

RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT/STATE & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:

¶9

1THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER
VITHURA POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -
695551

¶10

2STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 682031.
3XXX
X

¶11

BY ADV SHAKTHI PRAKASH

¶12

OTHER PRESENT:

¶13

SMT T V NEEMA -SR PP

¶14

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 19.12.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:

¶15

Crl.M.C.No. 2835 of 2021

¶16

-:2:-

¶17

O R D E R

¶18

Dated this the 19^th day of December, 2022

¶19

This Crl.M.C. has been preferred to quash Annexure-3 Final Report in C.P. 23/2022 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court (for trial of forest offences) Nedumangad, on the ground of settlement between the parties.

¶20

The petitioner is the accused. The 3^rd respondent is the de facto complainant.

¶21

The offences alleged against the petitioner are punishable under Sections 354, 354-D, 511 of 376 and 341 of Indian Penal Code. Even though, the offence under Section 511 of 376 of IPC, is alleged, prima facie, the said offence is not attracted going by the FI statement given by the victim.

¶22

The 3^rd respondent entered appearance through counsel. An affidavit sworn in by her is also produced.

¶23

I have heard Sri. V.A. Vinod, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri. Shakthi Prakash, the learned counsel for the respondent No.3 and Smt. Neema, the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶24

The averments in the petition as well as the affidavit

¶25

Crl.M.C.No. 2835 of 2021

¶26

-:3:-

¶27

sworn in by the 3^rd respondent would show 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 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 the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of process of any Court.

¶29

The dispute in the above case is purely personal in

¶30

nature. No public interest or harmony will be adversely affected

¶31

Crl.M.C.No. 2835 of 2021

¶32

-:4:-

¶33

by quashing the proceedings pursuant to Annexure-1. 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-3 Final Report in C.P. 23/2022 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court (for trial of forest offences) Nedumangad, hereby stands quashed.

¶35

Sd/-

¶36

DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH

¶37

JUDGE

¶38

mtk

¶39

Crl.M.C.No. 2835 of 2021

¶40

-:5:-

¶41

APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 2835/2021

¶42

PETITIONER ANNEXURES

¶43

Annexure ITRUE COPY OF THE FIRST INFORMATION
REPORT IN CRIME NO. 446/2021.
Annexure IITRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN IN BY
THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 05.05.2021.

Sajeev v. the Station House Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sajeev v. the Station House Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Xxxxx Vs State of Kerala

Mathew George, Vs State of Kerala

Ajesh T.K Vs State of Kerala

Maneesh S.K Vs State of Kerala

Sudheendraprasad Vs the State of Kerala

Rakesh Vs State of Kerala