Petitioners sought quashing of a Final Report under S. 482 CrPC citing settlement. Kerala HC held offences not prohibited from compounding, dispute personal, and proceedings should be quashed to serve ends of justice.
Criminal Misc. Case allowed; Final Report in C.C.No.2326/2016 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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
THURSDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF JANUARY 2023 / 22ND POUSHA, 1944
CRL.MC NO. 4045 OF 2022
CRIME NO.369/2010 OF Nemom Police Station,
Thiruvananthapuram
CC 2326/2016 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST
CLASS,NEYYATTINKARA (TEMPORARY)
PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 -3:
AGED 48 YEARS S.O SHIVANANDAN, KULATHUKAL THOTTATHIL VEETTIL, IRUMBA, ARUVIKKARA VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA-695541., PIN - 695541
2 CHANDRALEKHA AGED 49 YEARS W.O SURESH KUMAR, MAVARATHALAKONAM,
ULLOOR VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA-695038.
3 CHITHRALEKHA AGED 50 YEARS W.O RETNAKARAN, GRIHALEKSHMI NIVAS, KULATHUKAL DESOM, KARAKULAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA-695043., PIN - 695043
BY ADVS. G.RANJU MOHAN M.SANTHI (K/868/2011)
RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT:
Crl.M.C.No.4045/2022
-:2:-
2 REJANI AGED 35 YEARS D.O REMADEVI, RESIDING AT SREEDHARA VILASOM, KALLIYOOR VILLAGE, NEAR PRAVACHAMBALAM SBT BANK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM695020., PIN - 695020
BY SMT. T.V. NEEMA,SR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12.01.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.M.C.No.4045/2022
-:3:-
O R D E R
Dated this the 12th day of January, 2023
This Crl.M.C. has been preferred to quash Annexure A1
Final Report in C.C.No.2326/2016 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Neyyattinkara (Temporary) on the ground of settlement between the parties.
for the petitioners and Smt. T.V. Neema, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor.
Crl.M.C.No.4045/2022
-:4:-
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.
Crl.M.C.No.4045/2022
-:5:-
by quashing the proceedings pursuant to Annexure A1. 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).
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.2326/2016 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Neyyattinkara (Temporary) hereby stands quashed.
sd/-
DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
JUDGE
kp
Crl.M.C.No.4045/2022
-:6:-
APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 4045/2022
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A1 CERTIFIED COPY OF FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO.369 OF 2010 OF NEMOM POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. Annexure A2 AFFIDAVIT OF THE DEFACTO COMPLAINANT
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court can quash criminal proceedings violating S. 320 CrPC based on settlement and private nature of dispute under S. 482 CrPC.
Whether offences under Sections 498A and 34 IPC are suitable for quashing in light of absence of public interest.
Whether the ends of justice warrant quashing the criminal proceedings initiated against petitioners.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Gian Singh v. State of PunjabExplained¶39
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab [2012 (4) KLT 108 (SC)]
Narinder Singh and Others v. State of Punjab and OthersExplained¶39
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¶39
State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan and Others [(2019) 5 SCC 688] · Who else cites this
3 provisions across 2 enactments
SUDHEESH CAN CHITHRALEKHA
STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA
REJANI
KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
Parties & counsel
