Allowed

Susheel Raj v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC19 Jan 2023Crl.MC/46/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala quashed the Final Report in C.C. No. 130 of 2016 in a matrimonial dispute involving Section 498-A IPC. Invoking Section 482 Cr.P.C., the Court ruled that the dispute was purely personal, settled amicably, and quashing was warranted to ensure ends of justice, regardless of the non-compoundable nature of the offence.

What did the court decide?

Crl.M.C. allowed and the Final Report in C.C.No.130 of 2016 stands quashed.

Susheel Raj Vs State of Kerala — Matrimonial and Divorce | 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. 46 OF 2023

¶6

(AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN C.C. NO.130/2016 OF HONOURABLE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-XI, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM) PETITIONERS/ ACCUSED NOS. 1 AND 2:

¶7

1 SUSHEEL RAJ AGED 47 YEARS, S/O HENTRY, RESIDING AT TC 44/317, VICTORIA HOUSE, SEWAGE FARM ROAD, VELANKANNI, JUNCTION, BHEEMA PALIL WARD,MUTTATHARA VILLAGE THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 695009

¶8

2 SHINY RAJ AGED 52 YEARS, S/O. HENTRY, RESIDING AT TC 44/771 SANGUMUKHAM WARD KUZIVILAKAM,MUTTATHARA VILLAGE THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695009

¶9

BY ADV NAVEEN RADHAKRISHNAN

¶10

RESPONDENTS/ DEFACTO COMPLAINANT & STATE:

¶11

1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682018 2 MARY JOHN @ARCHANA, D/O BENEDICT, RESIDING AT TC 44/317, VICTORIA HOUSE,SEWAGE FARM ROAD, VELANKANNI, JUNCTION, BHEEMA PALIL WARD, MUTTATHARA VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 695009 BY ADV YADUNANDAN R.G.

¶12

SRI. PG MANU SR.P.P

¶13

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

¶14

CRL.MC NO. 46 of 2023

¶15

-:2:-

¶16

O R D E R

¶17

Dated this the 19 th day of January, 2023

¶18

This Crl.M.C. has been preferred to quash Annexure-I Final Report in C.C.No.130 of 2016 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-XI, Thiruvananthapuram on the ground of settlement between the parties.

¶19

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

¶20

The offences alleged against the petitioners are punishable under Sections 498-A r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code.

¶21

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

¶22

I have heard Sri.Naveen Radhakrishnan, the learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri.Yadunandan R.G., the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 and Sri.P.G.Manu, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor.

¶23

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

¶24

CRL.MC NO. 46 of 2023

¶25

-:3:-

¶26

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.

¶27

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.

¶28

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

¶29

CRL.MC NO. 46 of 2023

¶30

by quashing the proceedings pursuant to Annexure-I. The offences 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).

¶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-I Final Report in C.C.No.130 of 2016 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-XI, Thiruvananthapuram hereby stands quashed.

¶32

Sd/- DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH JUDGE

¶33

APA

¶34

CRL.MC NO. 46 of 2023

¶35

-:5:-

¶36

APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 46/2023

¶37

PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES