Allowed

Binoop v. State of Kerala Represented by Public Prosecutor

Kerala HC22 Dec 2022Crl.MC/9212/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed a criminal miscellaneous petition to quash criminal proceedings filed against the petitioner under Sections 506, 509 IPC and Section 120(o) of Kerala Police Act, 2011. Quashing was warranted due to a complete settlement and affidavit from the de facto complainant, invoking Section 482 Cr.P.C. and precedent.

What did the court decide?

Crl.M.C. No. 9212 of 2022 allowed; Annexure-A2 Final Report in C.C. No. 447 of 2020 quashed.

Binoop Vs State of Kerala Represented by Public Prosecutor — 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. 9212 OF 2022

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC 447/2020 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS ,NADAPURAM

¶7

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

¶8

BINOOP AGED 27 YEARS, S/O BABU, PARAYULLAPARAMBATH HOUSE, ADUKKATH, MOYILOTHARA P.O, MARUTHOMKARA, THOTTILPALAM, KOZHIKODE RURAL, PIN - 673513

¶9

BY ADV M.R.SASITH

¶10

RESPONDENT/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:

¶11

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

¶12

2 THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE THOTTIPALAM POLICE STATION KOZHIKODE RURAL, PIN - 673513

¶13

3 ANANYA AGED 27 YEARS, D/O BALAN, MANGALATH HOUSE MARUTHONKARA P.O, KAVILUMPARA, VADAKKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN - 673513 SRI P G MANU-SR PP

¶14

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

¶15

CRL.MC NO. 9212 of 2022

¶16

-:2:-

¶17

O R D E R

¶18

Dated this the 22 nd day of December, 2022

¶19

This Crl.M.C. has been preferred to quash Annexure-A2 Final Report in C.C.No.447 of 2020 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Nadapuram on the ground of settlement between the parties.

¶20

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

¶21

The offences alleged against the petitioner are punishable under Sections 506 and 509 of Indian Penal Code and Section 120(o) of Kerala Police Act, 2011.

¶22

An affidavit sworn in by the 3^rd respondent is also produced.

¶23

I have heard Sri.M.R.Sasith, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.P.G.Manu, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor.

¶24

The averments in the petition as well as the affidavit sworn in by the 3^rd respondent 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 criminal

¶25

CRL.MC NO. 9212 of 2022

¶26

-:3:-

¶27

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.

¶28

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.

¶29

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

¶30

CRL.MC NO. 9212 of 2022

¶31

offences in question 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

¶32

Laxmi Narayan (supra).

¶33

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.447 of 2020 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Nadapuram hereby stands quashed.

¶34

Sd/-

¶35

DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH JUDGE

¶36

APA

¶37

CRL.MC NO. 9212 of 2022

¶38

-:5:-

¶39

APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 9212/2022

¶40

PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES

¶41

Annexure A1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE FIR REGISTERED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT Annexure A2 TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT FILED BEFORE JUDICIAL FIRST-CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT NADAPURAM AS CC 447/2020 Annexure A3 THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT

Binoop v. State of Kerala Represented by Public Prosecutor

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Binoop v. State of Kerala Represented by Public Prosecutor

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

Athulkrishna Vs State of Kerala