Allowed

Pratheep T.C. v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC4 Apr 2022Crl.MC/50/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court allowed a criminal miscellaneous petition seeking quashment of a Final Report in a case under IPC Sections 498(A), 294(b), and 323. Citing Supreme Court precedents, the court held that since the dispute was purely personal and amicably settled, proceeding further served no purpose, warranting quashment under S.482 Cr.P.C.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Misc. Case allowed; Annexure A Final Report in Crime No. 335/2017 quashed.

Pratheep T.C. Vs the 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

MONDAY, THE 4^TH DAY OF APRIL 2022 / 14TH CHAITHRA, 1944

¶5

CRL.MC NO. 50 OF 2022

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC 2682/2017 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS

¶7

MAGISTRATE COURT,KUNNAMKULAM ARISING OUT OF CRIME NO.335/2017 OF THE KUNNAMKULAM POLICE STATION, THRISSUR DISTRICT

¶8

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

¶9

PRATHEEP T.C. AGED 44 YEARS S/O. CHATHUNNI, THOMMANPARAMBIL HOUSE, KANIRATHINGAL, KATTAKAMBAL, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN 680 544

¶10

BY ADV K.RAKESH

¶11

RESPONDENTS/STATE & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:

¶12

1 THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI 682 031

¶13

2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER KUNNAMKULAM POLICE STATION, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN 680 503 3 SALINI AGED 37 YEARS D/O. VELAYUDHAN, THOMMANPARAMBIL HOUSE, KATTAKAMBAL, NOW RESIDING AT PULLAKKAPARAMBIL HOUSE, PALLANGATTUCHIRA, PATTAMBI TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT 679 303 BY ADV K.S.PRAVEEN

¶14

OTHER PRESENT:

¶15

SRI M P PRASANTH-PP

¶16

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04.04.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

¶18

CRL.MC NO. 50 OF 2022

¶19

ORDER

¶20

This Crl.M.C. has been preferred to quash Annexure A Final Report in Crime No.335/2017 of the Kunnamkulam Police Station on the ground of settlement between the parties.

¶21

The petitioner is the accused. The 3^rd respondent is the defacto complainant

¶22

The offence alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 498(A), 294(b) and 323 of Indian Penal Code.

¶23

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

¶24

I have heard Sri.K.Rakesh, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri.K.S.Praveen, the learned counsel for the respondent No.3 and Sri.M.P.Prasanth, the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶25

The averments in the petition as well as the affidavit sworn in by the respondent No.3 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 crime 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.

¶26

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

¶27

¶28

CRL.MC NO. 50 OF 2022

¶29

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 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

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 A. 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).

¶31

For the reasons stated above, I am of the view that no purpose will be served in proceeding with the matter further. Accordingly, the Crl.M.C. is allowed. Annexure A Final Report in Crime No.335/2017 of the Kunnamkulam Police Station stands hereby quashed.

¶32

Sd/-

¶33

DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH

¶34

JUDGE

¶35

bng

¶36

CRL.MC NO. 50 OF 2022

¶37

¶38

APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 50/2022

¶39

PETITIONER ANNEXURES

¶40

Annexure A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO.335/2017 OF THE KUNNAMKULAM POLICE STATION Annexure B AFFIDAVIT SWORN TO BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED, 1-1-2022

Pratheep T.C. v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pratheep T.C. v. the 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

Shibu Vs State of Kerala

Sreejith Vs the State of Kerala

Ibrahim.K.a Vs State of Kerala

Xxxx Vs State of Kerala

Shaheer Hashim, Vs the State of Kerala

Hassan Vs State of Kerala