Allowed

Sreenish A.J v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC5 Jul 2022Crl.MC/2912/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Criminal Misc. Case granted leave to proceed with a petition to quash the Final Report in CC No. 168/2021 for offences under Sections 498A and 34 IPC. The Court quashed the proceedings based on an amicable settlement between the parties and the absence of public interest.

What did the court decide?

Crl.M.C. allowed; Annexure 1 Final Report in Crime No. 1030/2020/CC No. 168/2021 quashed.

Sreenish A.J Vs State of Kerala — Matrimonial and Divorce | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 5^TH DAY OF JULY 2022 / 14TH ASHADHA, 1944

¶5

CRL.MC NO. 2912 OF 2022

¶6

CRIME NO.1030/2020 OF Hill Palace Police Station, Ernakulam, CC 168/21 OF JFCM, THRIPPUNITHURA

¶7

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED:

¶8

1 SREENISH A.J, AGED 30 YEARS, S/O JAYACHANDRAN A.P. ANUGRAHA, ADAMPILLY, THEVARAKAVU ROAD, TRIPUNITHURA P.O, ERNAKULAM, KERALA, PIN - 682301

¶9

2 JAYACHANDRAN A.P, AGED 62 YEARS, S/O PADMANABHA PRABHU , ANUGRAHA ADAMPILLY ,THEVARAKAVU ROAD, THRIPPUNITHURA P.O.,ERNAKULAM ,KERALA, PIN - 682301

¶10

BY ADVS.SIKHA G.NAIR, ANJANA SURESH.E BEENA N.KARTHA

¶11

ESPONDENTS/STATE & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:

¶12

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

¶13

2 GAYATHRI B, AGED 28 YEARS, D/O T.D BABUJI, INDIRA GARDENS, MADASSERI HOUSE, DASA PRABHU ROAD, KIZHAKUMPURAM, CHENDAMANGALAM P.O, ERNAKULAM, KERALA., PIN - 683512

¶14

BY ADVS.GISHA G. RAJ, REJIVUE K.C. Smt.T.V. NEEMA, SR. PP

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05.07.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

Crl.M.C.No.2912/2022

-:2:-

O R D E R

Dated this the 5^th day of July, 2022

¶20

This Crl.M.C. has been preferred to quash Annexure 1 Final Report in Crime No.1030/2020 of Hill Palace Police Station now pending as C.C.No.168/2021 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Thripunithura on the ground of settlement between the parties.

¶21

The petitioners are the accused Nos. 1 and 2. The 2^nd respondent is the defacto complainant.

¶22

The offences alleged against the petitioners are punishable under Sections 498 A and 34 of IPC.

¶23

The respondent No.2 entered appearance through counsel. An affidavit sworn in by her is also produced.

¶24

I have heard Adv. Sikha G. Nair, the learned counsel for the petitioners, Adv. Gisha G. Raj, the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 and Smt. T.V. Neema, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor.

¶25

The averments in the petition as well as the affidavit

¶26

Crl.M.C.No.2912/2022

¶27

-:3:-

¶28

sworn in by the respondent No.2 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

¶29

the investigating officer and a statement of the de facto complainant was also recorded wherein she reported that the matter was amicably settled.

¶30

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.

¶31

The dispute in the above case is purely personal in

¶32

Crl.M.C.No.2912/2022

¶33

nature. No public interest or harmony will be adversely affected 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

¶34

Laxmi Narayan (supra).

¶35

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.1030/2020 of Hill Palace Police Station now pending as C.C.No.168/2021 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Thripunithura hereby stands quashed.

¶36

Sd/-

¶37

DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH

JUDGE

Crl.M.C.No.2912/2022

-:5:-

APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 2912/2022

¶43

PETITIONER ANNEXURES

¶44

Annexure1 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO. 1030/2020 OF HILL PALACE POLICE STATION , THRIPPUNITHURA ,DATED 17/02/2021 ALONG WITH LEGIBILE TYPED COPY OF PAGES 1 - 4 Annexure2 AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 2 ND RESPONDENT DATED 18/03/2022

Sreenish A.J v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sreenish A.J 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

Thomas @Unni Vs State of Kerala

Sunil Kumar S/O Velayudhan Vs State of Kerala

Krishna Priya Vs 1. The State of Kerala represented by the Public Prosecutor High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam.

Ujesh Vs State of Kerala

Dr.Rijeena A.K. Vs the State of Kerala

Dr.Rijeena A.K. Vs the State of Kerala