Allowed

Noyal John Fernandas v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC25 Oct 2022Crl.MC/3104/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court allowed a criminal miscellaneous petition seeking quashing of final report regarding offences under Sections 498A, 323 and 34 IPC. Relying on settled precedents, the court quashed proceedings due to an amicable settlement between parties, holding no public interest would be harmed.

What did the court decide?

Annexure 2 Final Report in Crime No.945/2018 quashed; Crl.M.C. allowed.

Noyal John Fernandas 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 25^TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2022 / 3RD KARTHIA, 1944

¶5

CRL.MC NO. 3104 OF 2022

¶6

CRIME NO.945/2018 OF Kilikolloor Police Station, Kollam CC NO.1273/19 OF JFCM-I KOLLAM

¶7

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED:

¶8

1 NOYAL JOHN FERNANDAS AGED 47 YEARS S/O NICHOLAS JOHN FERNANDAS, MALLIKAPARAMBU VEEDU, PALACE ROAD, THANKASSERY P.O, KOLLAM DISTRICT 691007

¶9

2 MARY FERNANDAS AGED 75 YEARS W/O NICHOLAS FERNANDAS, CHAKKARA VILLA, THANKASSERY NAGAR, THANKASSERY P.O, KOLLAM WEST VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 691007 3 MARIA DANIEL FERNANDAS, AGED 49 YEARS D/O NICHOLAS FERNANDAS, MALLIKAPARAMBU, PALACE ROAD, THANKASSERY P.O, KOLLAM WEST, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 691007

¶10

4 HELEN ALOSHIUS AGED 53 YEARS W/O P.J ALOYSIUS, COLLEGE DALE (GEETHA GARDEN), EAST WEST NAGAR-17, THANKASSERY P.O, KOLLAM, PIN - 691007

¶11

Crl.M.C.No.3104/2022

¶12

-:2:-

¶13

BY ADVS. PRATHEESH.P ANJANA KANNATH T.S.SREEKUTTY

¶14

RESPONDENTS/STATE & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:

¶15

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

¶16

2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER KILIKOLLOOR POLICE STATION, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 691004 3 JISHA RAJU AGED 36 YEARS D/O ALFONSA RAJU, AGED 36 YEARS, JAYIN VILLA, RAJADANI NAGAR-4, MANGADU CHERRY, MANGADU VILLAGE, KILIKOLLOOR, KOLLAM, PIN - 691004 BY ADVS.A.MUHAMMED RAFFI RENUKA VENU SRI. P.G. MANU, SR. PP

¶17

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25.10.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

Crl.M.C.No.3104/2022

-:3:-

O R D E R

Dated this the 25^th day of October, 2022

¶22

This Crl.M.C has been preferred to quash Annexure 2 Final Report in Crime No.945/2018 of Kilikolloor Police Station now pending as C.C.No.1273/2019 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Kollam on the ground of settlement between the parties.

¶23

The petitioners are the accused Nos. 1 to 4. The 3^rd respondent is the defacto complainant

¶24

The offences alleged against the petitioners are punishable under Sections 498A, 323 and 34 of IPC.

¶25

The respondent No.3 entered appearance through counsel. An affidavit sworn in by her is also produced.

¶26

I have heard Sri. Pratheesh P., the learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri. A. Muhammed Raffi, the learned counsel for the respondent No.3 and Sri. P.G. Manu, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor.

¶27

The averments in the petition as well as the affidavit

¶28

sworn in by the respondent No.3 would show that the entire

¶29

Crl.M.C.No.3104/2022

¶30

-:4:-

¶31

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.

¶32

The Apex Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab [2012 (4) KLT 108 (SC)], Narinder Singh and Others v. State

¶33

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.

¶34

The dispute in the above case is purely personal in nature. No public interest or harmony will be adversely affected

¶35

Crl.M.C.No.3104/2022

¶36

-:5:-

¶37

by quashing the proceedings pursuant to Annexure 2. 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).

¶38

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 2 Final Report in Crime No.945/2018 of Kilikolloor Police Station now pending as C.C.No.1273/2019 on the file of the Judicial First Class MagistrateI, Kollam hereby stands quashed.

¶39

Sd/-

¶40

DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH

JUDGE

Crl.M.C.No.3104/2022

-:6:-

APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 3104/2022

¶46

PETITIONER ANNEXURES

¶47

Annexure1 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF FIR WITH FIS IN CRIME NO.945/2018 OF KILIKOLLOOR POLICE STATION DATED 25.11.2018 Annexure2 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO.945/2018 OF KILIKOLLOOR POLICE STATION DATED 02.09.2019 Annexure3 THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT/DE-FACTO COMPLAINANT REGARDING COMPROMISE DATED 12.05.2022

Noyal John Fernandas v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Noyal John Fernandas 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

x Vs the State of Kerala

Nizar Vs State of Kerala

Hamsa Vs State of Kerala

Chempakakutty Vs Rethikamani

Varghese Thankan Vs State of Kerala

Dr.Wesley K. Abraham Vs Anju Antony