This court allowed a criminal miscellaneous case to quash a final report in a Section 498A IPC case. The court quashed proceedings as the parties had amicably settled the dispute, and no public interest was affected.
The Crl.M.C. is allowed and the Annexure 1 Final Report in C.C.No.225/2020 is quashed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
FRIDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL 2022 / 11TH CHAITHRA, 1944
CRL.MC NO. 960 OF 2022
CC 225/2020 OF JUDL. MAGI. OF FIRST CLASS-III, KOTTAYAM Crime No.38/2020 of Manarcaud Police Station, Kottayam
PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 & 2:
1 GIJIN THOMAS AGED 34 YEARS PARAYIL VEEDU, NEELANADAPPADI THIRIVANCHUR P O, MANNARKADU KOTTAYAM, PIN – 686019 2 ELIZABETH THOMAS AGED 61 YEARS PARAYIL VEEDU, NEELANADAPPADI THIRIVANCHUR P O, MANNARKADU KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686019 BY ADVS. P.N.ANOOP SANTHOSH PETER (MAMALAYIL) M.S.SANDEEP SUDHAKARAN P.S.NANDANAN
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031 2 MEENU JOSEPH AGED 28 YEARS KALAPUARAKKAL,PALA, KADAPPATTOOR P.O, KOTTAYAM- 686574, NOW RESIDING AT KALAPURAKKAL HOUSE, VILLONNI P O, ARPOOKARA, KOTTAYAM, PIN – 686008 R2 BY ADV P.ABDUL NISHAD R1 SRI M P PRASANTH- Public Prosecutor THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01.04.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.M.C.No.960 of 2022
..2..
ORDER
This Crl.M.C. has been preferred to quash Annexure 1 Final Report in C.C.No.225/2020 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-III, Kottayam on the ground of settlement between the parties.
Crl.M.C.No.960 of 2022
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.
Crl.M.C.No.960 of 2022
Class Magistrate Court-III, Kottayam. 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).
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.225/2020 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-III, Kottayam stands hereby quashed.
Sd/-
DR.KAUSER EDAPPAGATH, JUDGE
skj
Crl.M.C.No.960 of 2022
..5..
APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 960/2022
PETITIONERS' ANNEXURES Annexure1 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO.38/2020 REGISTERED BY MANARKAD POLICE STATION, KOTTAYAM NOW PENDING AS CC NO.225/2020 ON THE FILE OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT III KOTTAYAM Annexure2 THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court can quash criminal proceedings under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. upon settlement of a dispute under Sections 498A and 34 IPC despite the bar under Section 320 Cr.P.C.?
Whether personal nature of the dispute warrants quashing to prevent abuse of process or to ensure ends of justice.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Gian Singh v. State of PunjabReferred¶22
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab [2012 (4) KLT 108 (SC)]
Narinder Singh and Others v. State of Punjab and OthersReferred¶2225
Narinder Singh and Others v. State of Punjab and Others [(2014) 6 SCC 466] · Who else cites this
State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan and OthersReferred¶2225
State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan and Others [(2019) 5 SCC 688] · Who else cites this
4 provisions across 2 enactments
Gijin Thomas
Elizabeth Thomas
State of Kerala
Meenu Joseph
Dr. Justice Kauser Edappagath
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
