Allowed

Arjun Prasad v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC14 Dec 2022Crl.MC/6191/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed the FIR in a Section 498A IPC case following an amicable settlement between the parties. Relying on Apex Court precedents, the court held that since the dispute was personal and no public interest was involved, continuing proceedings served no purpose.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Miscellaneous Case was allowed and the Annexure A FIR in Crime No.1168/2021 of Kottarakkara Police Station was quashed.

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

¶1

CRL.MC NO. 6191 OF 2022

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH

¶6

WEDNESDAY, THE 14^TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2022 / 23RD AGRAHAYANA, 1944

¶7

CRL.MC NO. 6191 OF 2022

¶8

CRIME NO.1168/2021 OF Kottarakkara Police Station, Kollam

¶9

PETITIONER/S:

¶10

1ARJUN PRASAD, AGED 30 YEARS
S/O PRASAD KUMAR,
PALAMPARAMBIL, POONJAR THEKKEKARA,
POONJAR, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT., PIN - 686581
2SUDHA KUMARI, AGED 56 YEARS
W/O PRASAD KUMAR,
PALAMPARAMBIL,
POONJAR THEKKEKARA,
POONJAR, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT., PIN - 686581
3PRASAD KUMAR, AGED 61 YEARS
S/O GOVINDAN NAIR,
PALAMPARAMBIL, POONJAR THEKKEKARA,
POONJAR, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT., PIN - 686581
BY ADVS.
K.V.ANIL KUMAR
SWAPNA VIJAYAN
RADHIKA S.ANIL

¶11

RESPONDENTS:

¶12

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

¶13

2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER, KOTTARAKARA POLICE STATION, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 691506

¶14

3 DR. GOPIKA, AGED 28 YEARS D/O RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR, VAISHNAVAM, NEELESWARAM P.O., NEDUVATHOOR VILLAGE, KOTTARAKARA TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT., PIN - 691506 R1 & R2 BY SMT.T.V.NEEMA-SR.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR R3 BY ADV MOHANAN M.K.

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON

¶16

14.12.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

CRL.MC NO. 6191 OF 2022

¶18

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

This Crl.M.C. has been preferred to quash Annexure A FIR in Crime No.1168/2021 of Kottarakkara Police Station on the ground of settlement between the parties.

¶21

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

¶22

The offence alleged against the petitioners is punishable

¶23

under Section 498A r/w 34 of IPC.

¶24

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

¶25

I have heard Sri.K.V.Anil Kumar, the learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri.Mohanan, M.K, the learned counsel for the respondent No.3 and Smt.T.V.Neema, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor.

¶26

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

¶27

CRL.MC NO. 6191 OF 2022

¶28

¶29

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.

¶30

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

¶31

the case or to ensure the 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 A FIR. The offence in question

¶33

CRL.MC NO. 6191 OF 2022

¶34

¶35

does 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

¶37

will be served in proceeding with the matter any further. Accordingly, the Crl.M.C. is allowed. Annexure A FIR in Crime No.1168/2021 of Kottarakkara Police Station hereby stands quashed.

¶38

Sd/-

¶39

DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH JUDGE

¶40

¶41

CRL.MC NO. 6191 OF 2022

¶42

¶43

APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 6191/2022

¶44

PETITIONER ANNEXURES

¶45

Annexure-ACERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.
1168 / 2021 OF KOTTARAKARA POLICE STATION
Annexure2AFFIDAVIT OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT

¶46

RESPONDENTS ANNEXURES: NIL

Arjun Prasad v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arjun Prasad 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

Ali Kadavandi Vs State of Kerala

Chokkuvinte Ahammed Vs Chokkuvinte Kunhamina Umma

Sreedevi Vs Principal Secretary

George Roby, Vs State of Kerala

Sadique Ali Vs State of Kerala

Nisha Rajan Vs State of Kerala