Allowed

Sreejith v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC1 Apr 2022Crl.MC/631/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court quashed criminal proceedings for offences including IPC 448, 294(b), 323, 506(i) and DV Act 31, relying on Section 482 CrPC and Apex Court precedents, allowing a criminal miscellaneous case to settle a personal dispute amicably between accused and complainant before Justice Kauser Edappagath at Ernakulam on 01 April 2022.

What did the court decide?

Crl.M.C.No.631/2022 allowed; Annexure 1 Final Report in C.C.No.3067/2020 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Chavakkad quashed.

Sreejith Vs the State of Kerala — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 1^ST DAY OF APRIL 2022 / 11TH CHAITHRA, 1944

¶5

CRL.MC NO. 631 OF 2022

¶6

Crime No.970/2020 of Vadanappally Police Station CC 3067/2020 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS ,

¶7

CHAVAKKAD

¶8

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

¶9

SREEJITH AGED 35 YEARS S/O.KARUNAKARAN, KARATTUPARAMBIL HOUSE, THANIYAM VILLAGE, PARINGOTTUKARA KIZHKUMURI DESOM,THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN – 680565.

¶10

BY ADV RAJESH CHAKYAT

¶11

RESPONDENTS/STATE & DE FACTO COMPLAINANT:

¶12

1 THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682 031.

¶13

2 THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE VADANAPPILLY POLICE STATION, THRISSUR DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 680 681. 3 SONA ASHOKAN AGED 31 YEARS D/O.CHEMBPARAMBIL ASHOKAN, NATTIKA DESOM, NATTIKA VILLAGE, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR, PIN - 680 566.

¶14

R3 BY ADV BIJU.C.ABRAHAM

¶15

OTHER PRESENT:

¶16

R1 & R2 BY SMT T V NEEMA -SR Public Prosecutor

¶17

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01.04.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

Crl.M.C.No.631 of 2022

¶19

..2..

¶20

ORDER

¶21

This Crl.M.C. has been preferred to quash Annexure 1 Final Report in C.C.No.3067/2020 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Chavakkad on the ground of settlement between the parties.

¶22

The petitioner is the accused. The 3^rd respondent is the de facto complainant.

¶23

The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 448, 294(b), 323, 506(i), 427 of the IPC and 31 of the DV Act.

¶24

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

¶25

I have heard Sri.Rajesh Chakyat, the learned

¶26

counsel for the petitioner, Sri.Biju C.Abraham, the learned counsel for the respondent No.3 and Smt.T.V.Neema, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor for the respondent Nos.1 and 2.

¶27

The averments in the petition as well as the affidavit sworn in by the respondent No.3 would show that the entire

¶28

..3..

¶29

Crl.M.C.No.631 of 2022

¶30

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.

¶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 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

¶33

Crl.M.C.No.631 of 2022

¶34

affected by quashing the proceedings pursuant to Annexure 1 Final Report in C.C.No.3067/2020 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Chavakkad. 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).

¶35

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 1 Final Report in C.C.No.3067/2020 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Chavakkad stands hereby quashed.

¶36

Sd/-

¶37

DR.KAUSER EDAPPAGATH, JUDGE

¶38

skj

¶39

Crl.M.C.No.631 of 2022

¶40

..5..

¶41

APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 631/2022

¶42

PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES

¶43

Annexure 1 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT/CHARGE SHEET IN CC NOP.3067/2020 JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, CHAVAKKAD DATED 26/09/2020. Annexure 2 ORIGINAL COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT FOR SETTLEMENT DATED 19/02/2021 BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

Sreejith v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sreejith 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

Rajesh @ Rajesh Kumar Vs State of Kerala

Sandeep S.Nair, Vs the State of Kerala

Dhanush Babu Vs State of Kerala

Shibu Vs State of Kerala

Ibrahim.K.a Vs State of Kerala

Gijin Thomas Vs State of Kerala