Allowed

Sarath Sasi v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC14 Oct 2022Crl.MC/6052/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the petition to quash the Final Report in a criminal case involving IPC 341, 324, 323, and 294(b). Relying on Apex Court precedents and the parties' settlement, the court held that proceeding further served no purpose and quashed the report.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Miscellaneous Case is allowed and the Annexure-A2 Final Report in C.C.No.341 of 2020 is quashed.

Sarath Sasi 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

FRIDAY, THE 14^TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2022 / 22ND ASWINA, 1944 CRL.MC NO. 6052 OF 2022

¶5

CC 341/2020 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT -I MUVATUPUZHA

¶6

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

¶7

SARATH SASI, AGED 33 YEARS, S/O.SASI RESIDING AT ILATHUMALA HOUSE, MARADY P.O., ERNAKULAM, PIN - 686673

¶8

BY ADV V.VISAL AJAYAN

¶9

RESPONDENTS/STATE/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:

¶10

1 STATE OF KERALA

¶11

REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031

¶12

2 AJITH SASI, AGED 19 YEARS, S/O.SASI RESIDING AT VAAKKATHINKALLINKAL HOUSE, UNNAKKUPPA, MARADY P.O., ERNAKULAM, PIN - 686673

¶13

BY ADVS. SANDEEP M.B K.P.SREEJA(K/788/2015) AMAL STANLY(K/437/2019), SRI P G MANU - SR PP

¶14

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14.10.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

¶16

CRL.MC NO.6052 OF 2022

¶17

O R D E R

¶18

This Crl.M.C. has been preferred to quash Annexure-A2

¶19

Final Report in C.C.No.341 of 2020 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Muvattupuzha on the ground of settlement between the parties.

¶20

The petitioner is the accused. The 2^nd respondent is the de facto complainant.

¶21

The offences alleged against the petitioner are punishable under Sections 341, 324, 323 and 294(b) of IPC.

¶22

The 2^nd respondent entered appearance through counsel. An affidavit sworn in by her is also produced.

¶23

I have heard Sri.V.Visal Ajayan, the learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri.M.B.Sandeep, the learned counsel for the 2^nd respondent and Sri.P.G.Manu, the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶24

The averments in the petition as well as the affidavit sworn in by the 2^nd respondent would show that

¶25

¶26

CRL.MC NO.6052 OF 2022

¶27

the entire dispute between the parties has been amicably

¶28

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.

¶29

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

¶30

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

¶31

notwithstanding the bar under S.320 of Cr.P.C. if it is warranted in the given facts and circumstances of the

¶32

¶33

CRL.MC NO.6052 OF 2022

¶34

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 Annexure-A2. 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).

¶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-A2 Final Report in C.C.No.341 of 2020 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Muvattupuzha hereby stands quashed.

¶37

Sd/-

¶38

DR.KAUSER EDAPPAGATH, JUDGE

¶39

¶40

CRL.MC NO.6052 OF 2022

¶41

¶42

APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 6052/2022

¶43

PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES

¶44

ANNEXURE A1 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIRST INFORMATION REPORT IN CRIME NO. 2603/2019 OF THE MUVATTUPUZHA POLICE STATION

¶45

ANNEXURE A2 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN C.C. NO. 341/2020 ON THE FILES OF THE HONOURABLE JUDICIAL FIRST-CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT - I, MUVATTUPUZHA WHICH AROUSE FROM CRIME NO. 2603/2019 OF MUVATTUPUZHA POLICE STATION

¶46

ANNEXURE A3 TRUE COPY OF THE FIRST INFORMATION REPORT IN CRIME NO. 2602/2019 OF MUVATTUPUZHA POLICE STATION

¶47

ANNEXURE A4 TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CC NO. 22/2020 ON THE FILES OF JFCM – III(JUVENILE JUSTICE BOARD -JJB) AT ERNAKULAM

¶48

ANNEXURE A5 ORIGINAL OF THE AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT DATED 16.08.2022

Sarath Sasi v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sarath Sasi 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

Dr Javed Muhammed Vs State of Kerala

Arunkumar Vs State of Kerala

Shaji.K.M Vs State of Kerala

Afeefa V.K Vs the Station House Officer

Vipinsad Vs the State of Kerala Represented by the Public Prosecutor

Mini Haris Vs Hanna Haris