Allowed

Nitheesh K.Menon v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC19 Jan 2023Crl.MC/37/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court allowed a special leave petition to quash the final report in a criminal case involving Section 498-A IPC. Relying on Supreme Court precedents, the court held that since the dispute had been settled amicably and quashing would not affect public interest, the proceedings were quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Misc. Case allowed; Annexure-2 Final Report in C.C. No. 387/2022 quashed.

Nitheesh K.Menon Vs State of Kerala — Domestic Violence | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 19^TH DAY OF JANUARY 2023 / 29TH POUSHA, 1944

¶5

CRL.MC NO. 37 OF 2023

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC 387/2022 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS - I, CHALAKUDY

¶7

PETITIONERS/ ACCUSED:

¶8

1 NITHEESH K.MENON AGED 30 YEARS, KEERTHI HOUSE, VAZHAKKUMPARA DESOM, PEECHI VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680653 2 THANKAMANI AGED 58 YEARS, W/O NARAYANANKUTTY, KEERTHI HOUSE, VAZHAKKUMPARA DESOM, PEECHI VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680653 BY ADVS. ABRAHAM MATHAN C.B.JITHIN ASWIN THANKAPPAN

¶9

RESPONDENTS/ STATE/ DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:

¶10

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031 2 SREELAKSHMI T.J AGED 25 YEARS, D/O JAYAKUMAR.K, THEKKEDATH HOUSE, MATTATHOOR VILLAGE, VASUPURAM DESOM, CHALAKUDY TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680684 BY ADVS. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR C.DHEERAJ RAJAN ANAND KALYANAKRISHNAN

¶11

SMT.T.V.NEEMA SR.P.P

¶12

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19.01.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶13

CRL.MC NO. 37 of 2023

¶14

-:2:-

¶15

O R D E R

¶16

Dated this the 19 th day of January, 2023

¶17

This Crl.M.C. has been preferred to quash Annexure-2 Final Report in C.C.No.387 of 2022 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Chalakudy on the ground of settlement between the parties.

¶18

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

¶19

The offences alleged against the petitioners are punishable under Section 498-A of Indian Penal Code.

¶20

The 2^nd respondent entered appearance through counsel. An affidavit sworn in by her is also produced.

¶21

I have heard Sri.Abraham Mathan, the learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri.C.Dheeraj Rajan, the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 and Smt.T.V.Neema, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor.

¶22

The averments in the petition as well as the affidavit sworn in by the 2^nd respondent would show that the entire dispute between the parties has been amicably settled and the

¶23

CRL.MC NO. 37 of 2023

¶24

-:3:-

¶25

de 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.

¶26

The Apex Court 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 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.

¶27

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

¶28

CRL.MC NO. 37 of 2023

¶29

by quashing the proceedings pursuant to Annexure-2. The offences in question does not fall within the category of offences prohibited for compounding in terms of the pronouncement of the

¶30

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

¶31

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 C.C.No.387 of 2022 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Chalakudy hereby stands quashed.

¶32

Sd/-

¶33

DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH JUDGE

¶34

APA

¶35

CRL.MC NO. 37 of 2023

¶36

-:5:-

¶37

APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 37/2023