Allowed

Vineeth v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC6 Oct 2023Crl.MC/4734/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed a criminal miscellaneous petition to quash the final report and all further proceedings in a criminal case involving IPC offences 341, 324, and 323. The court found the dispute personal, the settlement voluntary and fair, and no public interest compromised, allowing the petition.

What did the court decide?

Crl.M.C allowed; Final Report and all further proceedings in C.C. No.643/2022 quashed.

Vineeth Vs State of Kerala — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. BABU

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2023 / 14TH ASWINA, 1945
CRL.MC NO. 4734 OF 2023

¶5

AGAINST CC 643/2022 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST
CLASS -IV, KOZHIKODE IN CRIME NO.789/2019 OF NADAKKAVU

¶6

POLICE STATION

¶7

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

¶8

VINEETH,
AGED 38 YEARS, S/O MUKUNDAM,
VALIPPARAMBIL HOUSE, VIMALANAGAR P O,
PALAKULY, MANANTHAVADY, WAYANAD,
PIN – 670645

¶9

BY ADVS.
SRI.N.V.VINAY
SRI.ARUN P. ANTONY

¶10

RESPONDENTS/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:

¶11

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

¶12

2JINCY K. S.,
AGED 37 YEARS, W/O VINEETH,
KOKKAMPADATH HOUSE, ARATTUTHARA PO,
MANANTHAVADY, VALLIYOORKAVU, WAYANAD,
KERALA – 670645
NOW RESIDING AND WORKING AS NURSE AT ALORF
HOSPITAL, MANSOUR SAAD AL BANNAQ STREET,
PO BOX 2355, AL JAHRA, KUWAIT

¶13

BY ADV.
SRI.G.SUDHEER, PP

¶14

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 06.10.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME
DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

Crl.M.C.No.4734 of 2023

¶16

¶17

K.BABU, J .

¶18

Crl.M.C No.4734 of 2023

¶19

Dated this the 6^th day of October, 2023

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

The prayer in this Crl.M.C. is to quash Annexure-A3 Final Report in Crime No.789/2019 of Nadakkavu Police Station and all further proceedings in C.C. No.643/2022 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-IV, Kozhikode on the ground that the parties have arrived at a settlement in respect of the subject matter.

¶22

The petitioner is the sole accused.

¶23

The offences alleged against the petitioner are

¶24

punishable under Sections 341, 324 and 323 of IPC.

¶25

Respondent No.2, the defacto complainant entered appearance through counsel. An affidavit sworn to by her has also been placed before this Court.

¶26

Heard both sides.

¶27

I have perused the averments in the petition and the

¶28

affidavit sworn to by respondent No.2.

¶29

The learned Public Prosecutor, on instructions, submitted

¶30

Crl.M.C.No.4734 of 2023

¶31

¶32

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.

¶33

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 the offences not coming under the category of serious offences, where the parties have settled the matter between themselves, if it is warranted in the given facts and circumstances of the case, to ensure ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court.

¶34

¶35

Crl.M.C.No.4734 of 2023

¶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 Gian Singh (supra), Narinder Singh (supra) and Laxmi Narayan (supra).

¶38

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

¶39

Resultantly, the Crl.M.C is allowed. Annexure-A3 Final report in Crime No.789/2019 of Nadakkavu Police Station and all further proceedings in C.C. No.643/2022 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-IV, Kozhikode stand hereby quashed.

¶40

Sd/- K.BABU JUDGE

¶41

VPK

¶42

Crl.M.C.No.4734 of 2023

¶43

¶44

APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 4734/2023

¶45

PETITIONER ANNEXURES

¶46

Annexure A1TRUE COPY OF FIR NO. 789/2019 OF
NADAKAVU POLICE STATION
Annexure A2THE AFFIDAVIT SIGNED BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT DATED 10.06.2023
Annexure A3THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT
IN CRIME NO. 789/2019 OF NADAKKAVU
POLICE STATION

Vineeth v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vineeth 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

Chankuru @ Nappan Vs Kunchumon

Vellara Antony Sunny, Vs Hdb Financial Services Ltd.

Ullas Sebastian, Vs State Bank of India

Faisal P v Vs Authorised Officer, the Federal Bank Ltd.

Priya Maneshkumar Vs State Bank of India SBI

Suresh George, Vs Union Bank of India (Former Andhra Bank)