Allowed

Sebastian V.T. @ Jose v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC14 Jul 2022Crl.MC/887/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala quashed a First Information Report in a criminal miscellaneous petition. The dispute was personal in nature, the parties had reached a settlement, and the de facto complainant decided to withdraw due to no further purpose served by proceeding.

What did the court decide?

First Information Report in Crime No. 46/2022 of Alappuzha South Police Station stands quashed.

Sebastian V.T. @ Jose 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

THURSDAY, THE 14^TH DAY OF JULY 2022 / 23RD ASHADHA, 1944

¶5

CRL.MC NO. 887 OF 2022

¶6

CRIME NO. 46/2022 OF ALAPPUZHA SOUTH POLICE STATION

¶7

PETITIONER:

¶8

SEBASTIAN V.T. @ JOSE AGED 40 YEARS SON OF THOMAS, VADAKKETHAYYIL, BEACH WARD, KUTHIRAPANTHY, THIRUVAMAPADY P.O., ALAPPUZHA ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 688002 BY ADVS. G.PRIYADARSAN THAMPI S.ANIL

¶9

RESPONDENT:

¶10

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031 2 LIMA @ LIMA LAL, AGED 31 YEARS WIFE OF BIJU, VELANGATTU VEEDU, PALLATHURUTHI WARD, PAZHAVEEDU P.O., ALAPPUZHA ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 688009 BY ADV T.M.SUBHASH SMT T V NEEMA -SR PP

¶11

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14.07.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶12

Crl.M.C.No.887 of 2022

¶13

..2..

¶14

ORDER

¶15

This Crl.M.C. has been preferred to quash

¶16

Annexure-1 FIR in Crime No. 46/2022 of Alappuzha South police station on the ground of settlement between the parties.

¶17

The petitioner is the sole accused. The respondent No. 2 is the de facto complainant.

¶18

The offences alleged against the petitioner are punishable under Sections 294(b), 451, 323, 354, 354D and 506 of the IPC.

¶19

The respondent No. 2 entered appearance through

¶20

counsel. An affidavit sworn in by her is also produced.

¶21

I have heard Sri. Priyadarsan Thampi, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri. T M Subash, the learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 and Smt. Neema T V, the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶22

The averments in the petition as well as the affidavit

¶23

sworn in by the respondent No. 2 would show that the entire

¶24

Crl.M.C.No.887 of 2022

¶25

dispute between the parties has been amicably 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.

¶26

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

¶27

Crl.M.C.No.887 of 2022

¶28

..4..

¶29

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 1. 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 any further. Accordingly, the Crl.M.C. is allowed. Annexure-1 FIR in Crime No. 46/2022 of Alappuzha South police station hereby stands quashed.

¶32

Sd/-

¶33

DR.KAUSER EDAPPAGATH, JUDGE

¶34

RMV

¶35

Crl.M.C.No.887 of 2022

¶36

..5..

¶37

APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 887/2022

¶38

PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure 1 CERTIFIED COPY OF FIR IN CRIME NO. 46/2022 OF AALAPPUZHA SOUTH POLICE STATION. Annexure 2 AFFIDAVIT DATED 5/2/2022 SWORN TO BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

Sebastian V.T. @ Jose v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sebastian V.T. @ Jose 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

Thayyullathil Ratheesan Vs Moothattil Sreedharan

Rupesh Vs Ambily

Asif Nazeer Vs State of Kerala

Abdul Jaleel Vs State of Kerala

Abdul Rahman Vs State of Kerala

Shyam Das, Vs State of Kerala