Allowed

Arunkumar v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC13 Oct 2022Crl.MC/4311/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal miscellaneous matter, the Kerala High Court allowed a petition to quash criminal proceedings under Sections 498A and 34 IPC. The court held that since the dispute was settled amicably and no public interest was harmed, proceeding further would serve no purpose, invoking Section 482 Cr.P.C.

What did the court decide?

The Crl.M.C. is allowed, and all further proceedings pursuant to Annexure 1 Final Report in Crime No.718/2021 are quashed.

Arunkumar Vs State of Kerala — Domestic Violence | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 13^TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2022 / 21ST ASWINA, 1944

¶5

CRL.MC NO. 4311 OF 2022

¶6

CRIME NO.718/2021 OF Malayinkeezh Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram

¶7

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 TO 4:

¶8

1 ARUNKUMAR

¶9

AGED 33 YEARS S/O PREMAKUMAR, SREENIDHI VEEDU, UDAYA GARENS, KEERIYODU LANE, BLOCK NADA, MALAYINKEEZHU VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT., PIN - 695571

¶10

2 PREMAKUMAR AGED 58 YEARS S/O SREEDHARAN NAIR, SREENIDHI VEEDU, UDAYA GARENS, KEERIYODU LANE, BLOCK NADA, MALAYINKEEZHU VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT., PIN - 695571

¶11

3 MITHRA AGED 55 YEARS D/O SOUDAMINI AMMA, SREENIDHI VEEDU, UDAYA GARENS, KEERIYODU LANE, BLOCK NADA, MALAYINKEEZHU VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT., PIN - 695571

¶12

4 ASHAPREM AGED 28 YEARS D/O MITHRA, SREENIDHI VEEDU, UDAYA GARENS, KEERIYODU LANE, BLOCK NADA, MALAYINKEEZHU VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT., PIN - 695571

¶13

BY ADV P.ANOOP (MULAVANA)

¶14

RESPONDENTS/STATE/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:

¶15

Crl.M.C.No.4311/2022

¶16

-:2:-

¶17

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

¶18

2 ANAMIKA D/O S.LAILA, THIRUVATHIRA,BNRA 81,AMBALAMUKKU, PEROORKKADA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM., PIN - 695005

¶19

BY ADV A.CHANDRA BABU SMT. T.V. NEEMA, SR. PP

¶20

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13.10.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

Crl.M.C.No.4311/2022

-:3:-

O R D E R

Dated this the 13^th day of October, 2022

¶25

This Crl.M.C. has been preferred to quash all further proceedings pursuant to Annexure 1 Final Report in Crime No.718/2021 of Malayinkeezhu Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram on the ground of settlement between the parties.

¶26

The petitioners are the accused Nos. 1 to 4. The 2^nd respondent is the defacto complainant.

¶27

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

¶28

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

¶29

I have heard Sri. P. Anoop, the learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri. A. Chandra Babu, the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 and Smt. T.V. Neema, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor.

¶30

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

¶31

Crl.M.C.No.4311/2022

¶32

-:4:-

¶33

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.

¶34

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.

¶35

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 Annexure1. The

¶36

Crl.M.C.No.4311/2022

¶37

-:5:-

¶38

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).

¶39

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. All further proceedings pursuant to Annexure 1 Final Report in Crime No.718/2021 of Malayinkeezhu Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram hereby stands quashed.

¶40

Sd/-

¶41

DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH

JUDGE

Crl.M.C.No.4311/2022

-:6:-

APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 4311/2022

¶47

PETITIONER ANNEXURES

¶48

Annexure1 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME 718/2021OF MALAYINKEEZHU POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. Annexure2 COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT

Arunkumar v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arunkumar 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

Lagesh @ Kannan Vs State of Kerala

Shafeer Babu Vs State of Kerala

Aneesh Basheer, Vs State of Kerala

Dr Javed Muhammed Vs State of Kerala

Shaji.K.M Vs State of Kerala

Ashok Kumar Vs State of Kerala