Allowed

Athulkrishna v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC22 Dec 2022Crl.MC/9170/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Kerala quashed the Final Report in a criminal case involving cheating and criminal breach of trust. Relying on precedents, the single-judge bench allowed the Criminal Misc. Case, noting that the dispute was personal in nature, fully settled, and quashing was warranted to prevent abuse of process. The complainant submitted an affidavit confirming the settlement.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Misc. Case allowed; Final Report in C.C.No.1134/2022 quashed.

Athulkrishna 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 22^ND DAY OF DECEMBER 2022 / 1ST POUSHA, 1944

¶5

CRL.MC NO. 9170 OF 2022

¶6

CC 1134/2022 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -II,

¶7

KASARAGOD

¶8

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO. 1& 2:

¶9

1 ATHULKRISHNA, AGED 25 YEARS, SON OF AJITHKUMAR, DEVASIYA GRAHA, THUMMINADU, KUNJATHUR VILLAGE, MANJESHWAR TALUK, KASARAGOD., PIN - 671323

¶10

2 LATHAKUMARI.M, AGED 58 YEARS, WIFE OF AJITHKUMAR, DEVASIYA GRAHA, THUMMINADU, KUNJATHUR VILLAGE, MANJESHWAR TALUK, KASARAGOD., PIN - 671323

¶11

BY ADVS.A.ARUNKUMAR

¶12

HEERAKRISHNA T.H., SACHIN GEORGE ARAMBAN

¶13

RESPONDENTS/STATE/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:

¶14

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

¶15

2 ISHA, AGED 22 YEARS, DAUGHTER OF SUNDARA, ANGADIPADU, HOSANGADI, KADAMBAR VILLAGE, MANJESHWAR TALUK, KASARAGOD., PIN - 671323

¶16

BY ADV VIPIN T JOSE

¶17

SRI P G MANU-SR PP

¶18

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22.12.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

Crl.M.C.No.9170/2022

-:2:-

O R D E R

Dated this the 22^nd day of December, 2022

¶23

This Crl.M.C. has been preferred to quash Annexure A II Final Report in C.C.No.1134/2022 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Kasaragod on the ground of settlement between the parties.

¶24

The petitioners are the accused Nos. 1 and 2. The 2^nd respondent is the defacto complainant.

¶25

The offence alleged against the petitioners are punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of IPC.

¶26

The respondent No.2 entered appearance through counsel. An affidavit sworn in by her is also produced.

¶27

I have heard Sri. A. Arunkumar, the learned counsel for

¶28

the petitioners, Sri. Vipin T. Jose the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 and Sri.P.G. Manu, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor.

¶29

The averments in the petition as well as the affidavit sworn in by the respondent No.2 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

¶30

Crl.M.C.No.9170/2022

¶31

-:3:-

¶32

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.

¶33

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 Court.

¶34

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 II. The offences in question do not fall within the category of offences

¶35

Crl.M.C.No.9170/2022

¶36

-:4:-

¶37

prohibited for compounding in terms of the pronouncement of the Apex Court in Gian Singh (supra), Narinder Singh (supra) and Laxmi Narayan (supra).

¶38

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 A II Final Report in C.C.No.1134/2022 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Kasaragod hereby stands quashed.

¶39

Sd/-

¶40

DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH

JUDGE

Crl.M.C.No.9170/2022

-:5:-

APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 9170/2022

¶46

PETITIONER ANNEXURES

¶47

Annexure AI A TRUE COPY OF THE F.I.R IN CRIME NO.221 OF 2022 OF MANJESHWAR POLICE STATION Annexure AII CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO. 221 OF 2022 OF MANJESHWAR POLICE STATION Annexure AIII THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN TO BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2

Athulkrishna v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Athulkrishna 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

Ramseena Vs State of Kerala

Food Corporation of India Vs M.B.Vijayaraghavan Nair and Another

Firdous Vs State of Kerala

Aneesh Vs State of Kerala

Kochuthresia @ Shiny Vs State of Kerala

Binoop Vs State of Kerala Represented by Public Prosecutor