Allowed

Kochuthresia @ Shiny v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC22 Dec 2022Crl.MC/9422/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed a criminal miscellaneous petition to quash an FIR based on an amicably settled dispute between parties. The court invoked Section 482 Cr.P.C. ruling that no purpose is served in proceeding with the case.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Miscellaneous Case is allowed and the impugned FIR in Crime No.854/2022 of Eloor Police Station is quashed.

Kochuthresia @ Shiny 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 4 T H DAY OF JANUARY 2023 / 14TH POUSHA, 1944

¶5

CRL.MC NO. 9422 OF 2022

¶6

(CRIME NO.854/2022 OF ELOOR POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM)

¶7

PETITIONERS/ ACCUSED 1 TO 3:

¶8

1 KOCHUTHRESIA @ SHINY

¶9

AGED 58 YEARS, W/O TITUS V.J, VADASSERY HOUSE, MANJUMMEL P.O, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN: 683 501.

¶10

2 XAVIER RIBIN P.B@ RIBIN AGED 42 YEARS, S/O P J BASIL, PALLIPARAMBIL HOUSE, MOOLAMPILLY P.O, KADAMAKKUDY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN: 682 027

¶11

3 TITUS V. J AGED 68 YEARS, S/O JOSEPH V R, VADASSERY HOUSE, MANJUMMEL P.O, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN: 683 501.

¶12

BY ADVS. JOHN JOSEPH(ROY) JEFRIN MANUEL

¶13

RESPONDENTS/ STATE & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:

¶14

1 STATE OF KERALA

¶15

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

¶16

2 MINI S. A AGED 45 YEARS, W/O SAJI ANTONY, THAIPARAMBIL HOUSE, MANJUMMEL P.O, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN: 683 501.

¶17

BY ADV ANGEL GLORIA V.S.

¶18

SRI P G MANU-SR PP

¶19

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04.01.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

CRL.MC NO. 9422 OF 2022

¶21

-:2:-

¶22

O R D E R

¶23

Dated this the 4 th day of January, 2023

¶24

Spoke. Order dated 22/12/2022 is recalled.

¶25

This Crl.M.C. has been preferred to quash Annexure-A1 F.I.R. in Crime.No.854/2022 of Eloor Police Station on the ground

¶26

of settlement between the parties.

¶27

The petitioners are the accused Nos. 1 to 3. The 2^nd respondent is the de facto complainant.

¶28

The offences alleged against the petitioners are punishable under Sections 323, 341, 294(b), 506 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code.

¶29

The 2^nd respondent entered appearance through counsel. An affidavit sworn in by her is also produced.

¶30

I have heard Sri.John Joseph (Roy), the learned counsel for the petitioners, Smt.Angel Gloria V.S., the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 and Sri.P.G.Manu, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor.

¶31

The averments in the petition as well as the affidavit

¶32

CRL.MC NO. 9422 OF 2022

¶33

-:3:-

¶34

sworn in by the 2^nd 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 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.

¶35

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

¶36

ensure the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of process of any Court.

¶37

CRL.MC NO. 9422 OF 2022

¶38

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-A1. The 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 Laxmi Narayan (supra).

¶39

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-A1 F.I.R. in Crime.No.854/2022 of Eloor Police Station hereby stands quashed.

¶40

Sd/-

¶41

DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH JUDGE

¶42

APA

¶43

CRL.MC NO. 9422 OF 2022

¶44

-:5:-

¶45

APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 9422/2022