Allowed

Kalesh.G v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC24 May 2023Crl.MC/1434/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala quashed criminal proceedings under Crl.M.C. No. 1434 of 2023 as Ar. 1 Final Report in Crime No. 1302/2019 and surrounding proceedings in S.C. No. 392/2021 on the grounds of a voluntary settlement, pending settlement, and lack of public interest compromise.

What did the court decide?

Annexure 1 Final Report in Crime No. 1302/2019 and all further proceedings in S.C. No. 392/2021 are quashed.

Kalesh.G Vs State of Kerala — Quashing and FIR | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

CRL.MC NO. 1434 OF 2023

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. BABU

¶6

WEDNESDAY, THE 24^TH DAY OF MAY 2023 / 3RD JYAISHTA, 1945

¶7

CRL.MC NO. 1434 OF 2023

¶8

AGAINST THE SC 392/2021 OF ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS

¶9

COURT,PATHANAMTHITTA

¶10

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED:

¶11

1 XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX

¶12

2 XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX

¶13

3 XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX BY ADVS.

¶14

S.NIKHIL SANKAR

¶15

K.RAJENDRAN CHETTIAR JIBU JAMAL

¶16

RESPONDENTS:

¶17

1 STATE OF KERALA REP BY:PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682031

¶18

2 XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX

¶19

3 XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX

¶20

4 XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX R1 BY G SUDHEER,PP

¶21

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON

¶22

24.05.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

¶24

CRL.MC NO. 1434 OF 2023

¶25

K.BABU, J .

¶26

Crl.M.C.No.1434 of 2023

¶27

Dated this the 24th day of May, 2023

¶28

O R D E R

¶29

The prayer in this Crl.M.C. is to quash Annexure 1 Final Report in

¶30

Crime No.1302/2019 of Adoor Police Station and all further proceedings in S.C.No.392/2021 on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Court, Pathanamthitta on the ground that the parties have arrived at a settlement

¶31

in respect of the subject matter.

¶32

The petitioners are accused Nos.1 to 3.

¶33

The offences alleged against the petitioners are punishable under

¶34

Sections 323, 324, 506(i), 308, 341 and 34 of IPC and Section 75 of the

¶35

Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act.

¶36

Respondent Nos.2 to 4, the victims, entered appearance through

¶37

counsel. The affidavits sworn to by them have also been placed before the Court.

¶38

Heard both sides.

¶39

I have perused the averments in the petition and the affidavits

¶40

CRL.MC NO. 1434 OF 20233

¶41

sworn to by respondent Nos.2 to 4.

¶42

The learned Public Prosecutor, on instructions, submitted that the

¶43

matter was enquired into through the Investigating Officer, who has taken statements of the victims, and it is reported that the dispute between the parties has been amicably settled. The material placed before the Court shows that the entire dispute between the parties has been amicably settled and the victims have decided not to proceed further. The settlement between the parties is found to be voluntary and fair. The settlement or the compromise satisfies the conscience of the Court. It is seen that the victims agreed to settle the matter with their free will.

¶44

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 State of Madhya Pradesh v. Lakshmi Narayan and Others [(2019) 5 SCC 688] the Apex Court held that the High Court, invoking Section 482 of Cr.P.C., can quash criminal proceedings in relation to non-compoundable offences, where the parties have settled the matter between themselves notwithstanding the bar under Section 320 of Cr.P.C., if it is warranted in the given facts and circumstances of the case, to ensure ends of justice or

¶45

¶46

CRL.MC NO. 1434 OF 2023

¶47

to prevent abuse of the process of any Court.

¶48

In the instant case, the dispute is purely personal in nature.

¶49

There is nothing to show that public interest will be compromised by quashing the proceedings. The offences in question do not fall within the category of serious offences or heinous offences.

¶50

The offences in the present case do not fall within the category of offences prohibited for granting permission to compromise in terms of the pronouncement of the Apex Court in Gian Singh (supra), Narinder Singh (supra) and Lakshmi Narayan (supra).

¶51

This Court is of the view that no purpose will be served in proceeding with the matter further.

¶52

Resultantly, the Crl.M.C is allowed. Annexure 1 Final Report in Crime No.1302/2019 of Adoor Police Station and all further proceedings in S.C.No.392/2021 on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Court,

¶53

Pathanamthitta stand hereby quashed.

¶54

Sd/K.BABU, JUDGE

¶55

¶56