Allowed

Sindhu Bharathan v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC8 Dec 2022Crl.MC/4048/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a criminal miscellaneous petition seeking quashing of further proceedings under CC 140/2020 against accused Nos. 3 & 4. The court quashed the proceedings based on an amicable settlement between the petitioners and the de facto complainant, despite the remaining accused not consenting. Precedents allow partial quashing when settlement is specific to some accused.

What did the court decide?

All further proceedings in C.C.No.140/2020 as against petitioners/accused Nos. 3 & 4 alone stand quashed.

Sindhu Bharathan Vs State of Kerala — Quashing and FIR | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 8^TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2022/ 17TH AGRAHAYANA, 1944

¶5

CRL.MC NO. 4048 OF 2020

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC 140/2020 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -II,THRISSUR

¶7

PETITIONERS/ ACCUSED NOS. 3 & 4:

¶8

1 SINDHU BHARATHAN AGED 53 YEARS, W/O.BHARATHAN, KALATHIL HOUSE, THIRUVATHRA DESOM AND VILLAGE, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶9

2 SYAMALA SHANMUGHAN AGED 45 YEARS, W/O.SHANMUGHAN, KARUMATHIL HOUSE, THIRUR DESOM, KOLAZHI VILLAGE, M.G.KAVU, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADVS. SANTHOSH P.PODUVAL SMT.R.RAJITHA SMT.CHITHRA.S.BABU SRI.R.N.SANDEEP

¶11

RESPONDENTS/ STATE & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:

¶12

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶13

2 SAVITHA AGED 38 YEARS, D/O.NANDHANAN, VARIYAMPATTU HOUSE, MULANGUNNATHUKAVU DESOM, KOLAZHI VILLAGE, ANTHIKKAD, THRISSUR DISTRICT - 680 641. BY ADVS. SRI.K.K.DHEERENDRAKRISHNAN SRI.S.RAJEEV SRI.V.VINAY SRI.K.ANAND (A-1921) SR PP PRABHAKARAN

¶14

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08.12.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

Crl.M.C.No.4048 of 2020

¶16

-:2:-

¶17

O R D E R

¶18

Dated this the 8^th day of December, 2022

¶19

This Crl.M.C. has been preferred to quash all further proceedings in C.C.No.140/2020 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Thrissur . During the pendency of the above Crl.M.C., the matter has been settled between the parties.

¶20

Altogether, there are four accused. The petitioners are the accused Nos.3 & 4. It is submitted that the case as against accused Nos. 1 and 2 was already quashed. The 2^nd respondent is the de facto complainant.

¶21

The offences alleged against the petitioners are punishable under Sections 498-A, 341 and 323 of Indian Penal Code.

¶22

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

¶23

I have heard Sri.Santhosh P.Poduval, the learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri.S.Rajeev, the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 and Sri.C.N.Prabhakaran, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor.

¶24

The averments in the petition as well as the affidavit

¶25

Crl.M.C.No.4048 of 2020

¶26

-:3:-

¶27

sworn in by the 2^nd respondent would show that the entire dispute between the accused Nos. 3 & 4 with the de facto complainant has been amicably settled and the de facto complainant has decided not to proceed with the crime against the accused Nos.3 & 4 any further. The learned Public Prosecutor, on instruction, submits that the matter was inquired into through the investigating officer, and a statement of the de facto complainant was also recorded wherein he reported that the dispute with the accused Nos.3 & 4 was amicably settled.

¶28

The Apex Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab

¶29

[2012 (4) KLT 108 (SC)], Narinder Singh and Others v. State of Punjab and Others [(2014) 6 SCC 466] and State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan and Others [(2019) 5 SCC 688] has held that the High Court 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 ends of justice or to prevent abuse of process of any Court.

¶30

Crl.M.C.No.4048 of 2020

¶31

-:4:-

¶32

It is true that the settlement was arrived at between

¶33

the 2^nd respondent(de facto complainant) and the accused Nos.3 & 4 alone, who are the petitioners 1 & 2. No settlement was arrived at with the remaining accused. Hence, the question is whether the FIR/Final Report against some of the accused alone could be quashed on the ground of settlement invoking S.482 of Cr.P.C. The Apex Court in Lovely Salhotra and Another v. State NCT of Delhi and Another [(2018) 12 SCC 391] quashed the proceedings against one of the accused alone, invoking S.482 of Cr.P.C. That was a case where the High Court refused to quash

¶34

the proceeding holding that the FIR cannot be quashed in part. True, in the said case, the Apex Court had taken into account the facts of the case that no cognizable offence was made out. The Apex Court, on facts, also found that no offence was made out against the appellant/accused therein. However, the principle that could be deduced from the dictum laid down in the said decision

¶35

is that it is not impermissible to quash the FIR qua some of the accused alone, depending on the facts and circumstances of each case. This Court in Sajeev & Another v. State of Kerala and

¶36

Another (2022 (3) KHC 69), has held that it is permissible to

¶37

Crl.M.C.No.4048 of 2020

¶38

-:5:-

¶39

quash the proceedings against some of the accused alone on the ground of settlement depending on the facts and circumstances of each case. In these circumstances, I hold that it is permissible in law to quash the FIR or Final Report only against one or some of the accused on the ground of settlement, depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case invoking S.482 of Cr.P.C.

¶40

The learned counsel for the 2^nd respondent submitted that as the dispute between the petitioners and the 2^nd respondent is amicably settled, 2^nd respondent has no objection whatsoever if the final report is quashed only against the petitioners. The dispute in the above case is purely personal in nature. No public interest or harmony will be adversely affected by quashing the proceedings in C.C.No.140/2020 as against the petitioners. 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).

¶41

For the reasons stated above, I am of the view that no purpose will be served in proceeding with the matter further.

¶42

Crl.M.C.No.4048 of 2020

¶43

-:6:-

¶44

Accordingly, the Crl.M.C. is allowed. All further proceedings in C.C.No.140/2020 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate

¶45

Court-II, Thrissur as against the petitioners/accused Nos. 3 & 4 alone hereby stand quashed.

¶46

Sd/-

¶47

DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH JUDGE

¶48

APA

¶49

Crl.M.C.No.4048 of 2020

¶50

-:7:-

¶51

APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 4048/2020

¶52

PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES

¶53

ANNEXURE A TRUE COPY OF FIR IN CRIME NO.491/19 OF ANTHIKKAD POLICE STATION. ANNEXURE B TRUE COPY OF FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO.491/19 OF ANTHIKKAD POLICE STATION.

Sindhu Bharathan v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sindhu Bharathan 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

Baiju.R Vs State of Kerala

Shabeer K a Vs State of Kerala

Balan Vs State of Kerala

Johnson, Vs State of Kerala

Joggy Joseph Vs Shaji Antony

Suresh @ Kuttan Vs State of Kerala