Allowed

Aneesh V.S v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC16 Jan 2023Crl.MC/119/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed the FIR challenging an offence under Section 420 r/w Section 34 IPC. Upon hearing parties, the Court found a settlement between the complainants and accused. Invoking Section 482 CrPC, it held proceeding further served no purpose and granted the petition.

What did the court decide?

Crl.M.C. allowed; Annexure A1 FIR in Crime No.1526/2022 of Pothencode Police Station quashed.

Aneesh V.S Vs State of Kerala — Quashing and FIR | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

CRL.MC NO. 119 OF 2023

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH MONDAY, THE 16^TH DAY OF JANUARY 2023 / 26TH POUSHA, 1944 CRL.MC NO. 119 OF 2023

¶6

CRIME NO.1526/2022 OF Pothencode Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram

¶7

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED:

¶8

1ANEESH V.S, AGED 27 YEARS
S/O. VIJAYAN,
ROHINI, MANGALAPURAM
THONNAKKAL P.O
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695317
2REMYA.L
AGED 25 YEARS
D/O SATHYAN
VILAYIL VEEDU,
CHARUMMOODU,
AYIROOPPARA P.O,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695584
3REJITH M
AGED 34 YEARS
S/O MURUKAN
N.R.HOUSE
KIZHAKKEPPURAM P.O
AYROOR, VARKKALA, PIN - 695310
4RAJNEESH
AGED 37 YEARS
S/O RAJENDRAPRASAD,
THUSHARA,
REGHUNATHAPURAM
VARKALA P.O
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-, PIN - 695141
BY ADVS.
T.THASMI
DILEEP S.
KRISHNAPRIYA G.

¶9

CRL.MC NO. 119 OF 2023

¶10

¶11

RESPONDENT/S:

¶12

1STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
OFFICE OF THE ADVOCATE GENERAL,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031
2STATION HOUSE OFFICER
POTHENCODE POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM RURAL
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
OFFICE OF THE ADVOCATE GENERAL,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031
3SHEEBA, AGED 39 YEARS
D/O INDIRA,PERMANENTLY RESIDING AT
VISHNU MANGALAM VEEDU, MANJAMALA,
PATTAM WARD, MEL THONNAKAL,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM RURAL,
PRESENTLY RESIDING AT VENGODE WARD,
KEEZHU THONNAKAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM RURAL
PIN - 695317
4SHIJU, AGED 31 YEARS
S/O SUNDARAN
PERMANENTLY RESIDING AT
VISHNU MANGALAM VEEDU,
MANJAMALA, PATTAM WARD,
MEL THONNAKAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM RURAL,
PRESENTLY RESIDING AT VENGODE WARD,
KEEZHU THONNAKAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM RURAL
PIN - 695317
BY ADVS.
R1 & R2 BY SMT.T.V.NEEMA-SR.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
R3 & R4 BY SMT.ATHIRA A.MENON

¶13

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON

¶14

16.01.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

CRL.MC NO. 119 OF 2023

¶16

¶17

O R D E R

¶18

This Crl.M.C. has been preferred to quash Annexure A1 FIR in

¶19

Crime No.1526/2022 of Pothencode Police Station on the ground of settlement between the parties.

¶20

The petitioners are the accused Nos.1 to 4. The

¶21

respondent Nos.3 and 4 are the de facto complainants.

¶22

The offence alleged against the petitioners is punishable under Sections 420 r/w Section 34 of IPC.

¶23

The respondent Nos.3 and 4 entered appearance through counsel. The affidavits sworn in by them are also produced.

¶24

I have heard Sri.T.Thasmi, the learned counsel for the

¶25

petitioners, Smt.Athira.A.Menon the learned counsel for the respondent Nos.3 and 4 and Smt.T.V.Neema, the learned Senior

¶26

Public Prosecutor.

¶27

The averments in the petition as well as the affidavits sworn in by the respondent Nos.3 and 4 would show that the entire

¶28

dispute between the parties has been amicably settled and the de

¶29

CRL.MC NO. 119 OF 2023

¶30

¶31

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.

¶32

The Apex Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab [2012 (4) KLT 108 (SC)], Narinder Singh and Others v. State of Punjab and

¶33

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

¶34

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

¶35

The dispute in the above case is purely personal in nature. No public interest or harmony will be adversely affected by

¶36

CRL.MC NO. 119 OF 2023

¶37

¶38

quashing the proceedings pursuant to Annexure A1 FIR. The offence in question does not fall within the category of offences prohibited for compounding in terms of the pronouncement of the Apex Court

¶39

in Gian Singh (supra), Narinder Singh (supra) and Laxmi Narayan (supra).

¶40

For the reasons stated above, I am of the view that no purpose

¶41

will be served in proceeding with the matter any further. Accordingly, the Crl.M.C. is allowed. Annexure A1 FIR in Crime No.1526/2022 of Pothencode Police Station hereby stands quashed.

¶42

Sd/-

¶43

DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH JUDGE

¶44

¶45

CRL.MC NO. 119 OF 2023

¶46

¶47

APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 119/2023

¶48

PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A1CERTIFIED COPY OF FIR IN CRIME NO.
1526/2022 OF POTHENCODE POLICE STATION,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM RURAL DATED 03.12.2022
Annexure2AFFIDAVIT DATED 15.12.2022 EXECUTED BY
THE 3RD RESPONDENT
Annexure3AFFIDAVIT DATED 15.12.2022 EXECUTED BY
THE 4TH RESPONDENT

¶49

RESPONDENTS ANNEXURES: NIL

Aneesh V.S v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aneesh V.S 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dhanesh Padmanabhan Vs State of Kerala

Muhammed Althaf Vs State of Kerala

Hareesh Vs State of Kerala

Muhammed Riyas Vs State of Kerala

Ashraf Kurikkal @ Muthu Vs State of Kerala

Sheghil S.P Vs State of Kerala