High Court allowed a criminal miscellaneous petition seeking quashment of a Final Report in a Section 498A case. Relying on settled principles, the Court quashed proceedings due to a complete settlement between parties, holding no public interest was compromised.
Crl.M.C. No. 160 of 2023 allowed; Annexure A1 Final Report in C.C. No. 560/2022 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.
CRL.MC NO. 160 OF 2023
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
FRIDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF JANUARY 2023 / 30TH POUSHA, 1944
CRL.MC NO. 160 OF 2023
CRIME NO.2233/2021 OF Kottarakkara Police Station, Kollam
AGAINST CC 560/2022 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -I,
KOTTARAKKARA
PETITIONERS/ACCUSED:
1 LIBIN THOMAS, AGED 30 YEARS BADANI HOUSE, CHIRATTAKONAM, PALAMUKK, KOTTARAKARA , KOLLAM., PIN - 6915432 THOMAS, AGED 67 YEARS BADANI HOUSE, CHIRATTAKONAM, PALAMUKK, KOTTARAKARA, KOLLAM, PIN - 6915433 LISSY THOMAS, AGED 60 YEARS BADHANI HOUSE, CHIRATTAKONAM, PALAMUKKU, KOTTARAKARA, KOLLAM, PIN - 691543BY ADV SYAM J SAM
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 6820312 JOBY P DAVID, AGED 29 YEARS D/O.ROSAMMA, PUNNAN VILA, VIDYA NAGAR, KOTTARAKARA P.O, KOLLAM, PIN - 691506R1 BY SRI.P.G.MANU-SR.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR R2 BY ADV BAIJU V.THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
20.01.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
CRL.MC NO. 160 OF 2023
2
O R D E R
This Crl.M.C. has been preferred to quash Annexure A1 Final
Report in C.C.No.560/2022 on the file of the Judicial First Class
Magistrate Court I, Kottarakkara on the ground of settlement between the parties.
counsel. An affidavit sworn in by her is also produced.
sworn in by the respondent No.2 would show that the entire dispute between the parties has been amicably settled and the de
CRL.MC NO. 160 OF 2023
3
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.
CRL.MC NO. 160 OF 2023
4
The offence 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).
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 Final Report in C.C.No.560/2022 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court I, Kottarakkara hereby stands quashed.
Sd/-
DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH JUDGE
ab
CRL.MC NO. 160 OF 2023
5
APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 160/2023
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A1THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE CHARGE SHEET IN
CC 560/2022 BEFORE THE JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE OF THE FIRST CLASS,I
KOTTARAKARA
Annexure A2THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE DEFACTO
COMPLAINANT THE SECOND RESPONDENT HERE IN
RESPONDENTS ANNEXURES: NIL
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court can quash criminal proceedings under Section 498A IPC on settlement even though the offence is non-compoundable.
Whether the dispute is purely personal and quashing serves the ends of justice without adversely affecting public interest.
Whether the Crl.M.C. to quash the Final Settlement Report should be allowed.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Gian Singh v. State of PunjabExplained¶35
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab [2012 (4) KLT 108 (SC)]
Narinder Singh and Others v. State of Punjab and OthersExplained¶35
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 OthersExplained¶35
State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan and Others [(2019) 5 SCC 688] · Who else cites this
3 provisions across 2 enactments
LIBIN THOMAS
THOMAS
LISSY THOMAS
STATE OF KERALA
JOBY P DAVID
KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court