Allowed

Syam Babu v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC23 May 2023Crl.MC/3038/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed a Criminal Miscellaneous case petition seeking to quash criminal proceedings under Sections 498-A, 323, and 34 IPC. Citing settled apex court precedents, the Court held that since the dispute was personal, fully settled, and did not warrant continued prosecution, the proceedings were quashed under Section 482 CrPC.

What did the court decide?

Annexure A2 Final Report and all further proceedings in C.C No.307/2022 are quashed.

Syam Babu Vs State of Kerala — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. BABU

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 23^RD DAY OF MAY 2023 / 2ND JYAISHTA, 1945

¶5

CRL.MC NO. 3038 OF 2023

¶6

AGAINST C.C NO.307/2022 OF JFCM, CHAVARA

¶7

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED:

¶8

1 SYAM BABU, AGED 39 YEARS, S/O ANIL BABU, THACHAPPUZHA PARAMBIL HOUSE, PACHALAM, ERNAKULAM -, PIN - 682018 2 ANIL BABU, AGED 69 YEARS, S/O DEVAYANI, THACHAPPUZHA PARAMBIL HOUSE, PACHALAM, ERNAKULAM -, PIN - 682018 3 SREELATHA, AGED 64 YEARS, W/O ANIL BABU, THACHAPPUZHA PARAMBIL HOUSE, PACHALAM, ERNAKULAM -, PIN - 682018 BY ADVS. P.F.ROSY V.M.SYAM KUMAR PHILIP.N.JOSEPH SNEHA RAJIV

¶9

RESPONDENTS/STATE & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:

¶10

1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031 2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER, CHAVARA POLICE STATION, CHAVARA, KOLLAM, PIN - 681583 3 SOUMYA U, AGED 36 YEARS, D /O GANESAN, NADISSERIL, NEENDAKARA VILLAGE, NEENDAKARA MURI, KOLLAM, PIN - 691588 BY ADVS. PHILIP.N.JOSEPH S.GREESHMA SHANMUKHAN(K/001025/2004) N R SANGEETHARAJ, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶11

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23.05.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶12

Crl.M.C.No.3038 of 2023

¶13

¶14

K.BABU, J .

¶15

Crl.M.C.No.3038 of 2023

¶16

Dated this the 23^rd day of May, 2023

¶17

O R D E R

¶18

The prayer in this Crl.M.C. is to quash Annexure A2 Final Report in Crime No.167/2022 of Chavara Police Station, and all further proceedings in C.C No.307/2022 on the file of the Judicial

¶19

First Class Magistrate Court, Chavara on the ground that the parties have arrived at a settlement in respect of the subject matter.

¶20

The petitioners are accused Nos.1 to 3.

¶21

The offences alleged against the petitioners are punishable

¶22

under Sections 498-A, 323 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶23

Respondent No.3, the defacto complainant entered

¶24

appearance through counsel. An affidavit sworn to by her has also been placed before the Court.

¶25

Heard both sides.

¶26

I have perused the averments in the petition and the

¶27

affidavit sworn to by respondent No.3.

¶28

Crl.M.C.No.3038 of 2023

¶29

¶30

The learned Public Prosecutor, on instructions, submitted that the matter was enquired into through the Investigating Officer, who has taken the statement of the defacto complainant, 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 defacto complainant has 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 victim agreed to settle the matter with her free will.

¶31

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

¶32

Crl.M.C.No.3038 of 2023

¶33

¶34

circumstances of the case, to ensure ends of justice or to prevent

¶35

abuse of the process of any Court.

¶36

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

¶37

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

¶38

Gian Singh (supra), Narinder Singh (supra) and Lakshmi Narayan (supra).

¶39

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

¶40

Resultantly, the Crl.M.C is allowed. Annexure A2 Final Report in Crime No.167/2022 of Chavara Police Station, and all further proceedings in C.C No.307/2022 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Chavara stand hereby quashed.

¶41

K.BABU, JUDGE

¶42

KAS

¶43

Crl.M.C.No.3038 of 2023

¶44

¶45

APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 3038/2023

¶46

PETITIONER ANNE	XURES
ANNEXURE A1	CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR NUMBERED
	167/22 DATED 03-03-2022 CONFIDENTIAL
ANNEXURE A2	CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL
	REPORT/CHARGE SHEET IN C.C NO.307/22 CONFIDENTIAL
ANNEXURE A3	AFFIDAVIT OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 18.03.2023.

Syam Babu v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Syam Babu 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

PNB Housing Finance Ltd. Vs State of Kerala

O. Sankara Narayanan, Vs State of Kerala

Samitha Vs Mujeeb

Unni Mukundan Vs State of Kerala

Aswathy Unnikrishnan Vs State of Kerala

Manikuttan Vs State of Kerala