Allowed

Ligi George v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC20 Oct 2022Crl.MC/4162/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court of Kerala quashed an FIR in a criminal miscellaneous case on the ground that the dispute between parties was amicably settled. Relying on Supreme Court precedents, the court held that notwithstanding the non-compoundable nature of the offences, proceedings could be quashed to prevent abuse of process.

What did the court decide?

The Crl.M.C. is allowed and the Annexure-2 FIR in Crime No.357/2013 stands quashed.

Ligi George Vs State of Kerala — Cheque Dishonour | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 20^TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2022/ 28TH ASWINA, 1944

¶5

CRL.MC NO. 4162 OF 2022

¶6

CRIME NO.357/2013 OF Chengamanad Police Station,

¶7

Ernakulam

¶8

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 TO 3:

¶9

1 LIGI GEORGE

¶10

AGED 44 YEARS WIFE OF GEORGE, AREECKAL HOUSE, MEKKAD, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 683589

¶11

2 GEORGE A.A. AGED 49 YEARS SON OF ANTONY, AREECKAL HOUSE, MEKKAD, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 683589

¶12

3 T.V. ANTONY, AGED 84 YEARS SON OF KUNJUVAREED, THEKKANATH HOUSE, CHENGAMANAD, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN – 683578

¶13

BY ADV BOBBY RAPHEAL.C

¶14

RESPONDENTS/STATE & DE FACTO COMPLAINANT:

¶15

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031 2 SHAJI T.E. AGED 52 YEARS SON OF ESTHAPANOSE T.V. THEKKANATH VEEDU, CHENGAMANAD, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 683578

¶16

BY ADV.V.M.SAJAN

¶17

OTHER PRESENT : SRI.P.G.MANU, SR.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶18

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20.10.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

Crl.M.C.No.4162 of 2022

¶20

..2..

¶21

ORDER

¶22

This Crl.M.C. has been preferred to quash Annexure-2 FIR in Crime No.357/2013 of Chengamanad Police Station on the ground of settlement between the parties.

¶23

The petitioners are the accused Nos.1 to 3. The 2^nd respondent is the de facto complainant.

¶24

The offences alleged against the petitioners are punishable under Sections 406, 417, 420, 468, 471, 109, 120(b) and 427 r/w 34 of the IPC.

¶25

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

¶26

I have heard Sri.Bobby Rapheal.C, the learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri.V.M.Sajan, the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 and Sri.P.G.Manu, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor.

¶27

The averments in the petition as well as the affidavit 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

¶28

Crl.M.C.No.4162 of 2022

¶29

..3..

¶30

instruction, submits that the matter was enquired into through the investigating officer and a statement of the de facto complainant was also recorded wherein he reported that the matter was amicably settled.

¶31

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 ends of justice or to prevent abuse of process of any Court.

¶32

The dispute in the above case is purely personal in nature. No public interest or harmony will be adversely affected by quashing the proceedings pursuant to Annexure-2 FIR in Crime No.357/2013 of Chengamanad Police Station. The offences in question do not fall within the category of offences

¶33

Crl.M.C.No.4162 of 2022

¶34

..4..

¶35

prohibited for compounding in terms of the pronouncement of the Apex Court in Gian Singh (supra), Narinder Singh (supra) and Laxmi Narayan (supra).

¶36

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 FIR in Crime No.357/2013 of Chengamanad Police Station hereby stands quashed.

¶37

Sd/-

¶38

DR.KAUSER EDAPPAGATH, JUDGE

¶39

skj

¶40

Crl.M.C.No.4162 of 2022

¶41

..5..

¶42

APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 4162/2022

¶43

PETITIONERS' ANNEXURES Annexure1 CERTIFIED COPY OF CRL. M.P. NO.709/2013 FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT 1, ALUVA. Annexure2 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO. 357/2013 OF CHENGAMANAD POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. Annexure3 AFFIDAVIT DATED 20/6/2022 SWORN BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT

Ligi George v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ligi George 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

Abdul Hameed, Vs Fathimath Ramseena

Roy @ Royson Varghese, Vs State of Kerala

Kallalan Vs State of Kerala

X Vs State of Kerala

X Vs the State of Kerala

Aswathi Mohan Vs State of Kerala