Allowed

Abraham P.A v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC5 Jan 2023Crl.MC/2478/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court allowed a criminal miscellaneous petition to quash a final report in a matrimonial dispute. Relying on Supreme Court precedents, the court held that personal nature of the dispute and a subsequent settlement justified quashing proceedings under Section 482 CrPC despite the offences being non-compoundable.

What did the court decide?

Annexure 2 Final Report in S.T.No.2422/2019 on file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court I, Pala stands quashed.

Abraham P.A Vs State of Kerala — Matrimonial and Divorce | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

CRL.MC NO. 2478 OF 2022

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
THURSDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF JANUARY 2023 / 15TH POUSHA, 1944

¶6

CRL.MC NO. 2478 OF 2022

¶7

CRIME NO.1188/2019 OF Pala Police Station, Kottayam
AGAINST ST 2422/2019 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

¶8

CLASS ,PALA

¶9

PETITIONER/S:

¶10

1 ABRAHAM P.A, AGED 61 YEARS S/O.ABRAHAM, PARUTHIPPARA HOUSE, KEEZHPARAYAR P.O., POOVARANI, PALA, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686578

¶11

2 ANIYAMMA ABRAHAM, AGED 57 YEARS W/O.ABRAHAM P.A, PARUTHIPPARA HOUSE, KEEZHPARAYAR P.O., POOVARANI, PALA, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686578 BY ADVS. BABY THOMAS K.ANIL JOSEPH GEORGE T.J MARIAMMA JOSEPH ALICIA JOSE

¶12

RESPONDENTS:

¶13

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

¶14

2 ANUPRIYA, AGED 31 YEARS D/O.GEORGE, PINAKKAD HOUSE, KAROOR, KUMARAMANGALAM P.O., THODUPUZHA TALUK, IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN - 685605

¶15

R1 BY SRI.P.G.MANU-SR.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶16

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
05.01.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

CRL.MC NO. 2478 OF 2022

¶18

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

This Crl.M.C. has been preferred to quash Annexure 2 Final

¶21

Report in S.T.No.2422/2019 on the file of the Judicial First Class

¶22

Magistrate Court I, Pala on the ground of settlement between the parties.

¶23

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

¶24

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

¶25

I have heard Sri.Baby Thomas, the learned counsel for

¶26

the petitioners and Sri.P.G.Manu, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor.

¶27

The son of the petitioners and the 2^nd respondent entered into an agreement for settling the entire dispute in connection with their matrimonial relationship, which has been produced as Annexure 3. In the said agreement, it is specifically

¶28

CRL.MC NO. 2478 OF 20223

¶29

stated that the 2^nd respondent does not want to continue with the above case. 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.

¶30

The Apex Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab [2012

¶31

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

¶32

The dispute in the above case is purely personal in

¶33

nature. No public interest or harmony will be adversely affected by

¶34

CRL.MC NO. 2478 OF 2022

¶35

¶36

quashing the proceedings pursuant to Annexure 2 Final Report. 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).

¶37

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 2 Final Report in S.T.No.2422/2019 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate

¶38

Court I, Pala hereby stands quashed.

¶39

Sd/-

¶40

DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH JUDGE

¶41

¶42

CRL.MC NO. 2478 OF 2022

¶43

¶44

APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 2478/2022

¶45

PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure1ANNEXURE A1- FIR
Annexure2ANNEXURE A2 FINAL REPORT
Annexure3ANNEXURE A3 AGREEMENT IN OP(DIV)

¶46

RESPONDENTS ANNEXRES: NIL

Abraham P.A v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abraham P.A 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Abdul Muneer a P Vs State of Kerala

Prasannakumar Vs State of Kerala

Harikumar Vs State of Kerala

Ashique.M Vs State of Kerala

P.v.Vijayan Vs State of Kerala

Asif Ali Vs State of Kerala