Allowed

Renuka v. Sukanya.C.K

Kerala HC13 Oct 2023Crl.MC/5191/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed a Criminal Misc. application to quash criminal proceedings against the petitioner. The court found that the parties had settled the issues, and the complaintant did not wish to continue prosecution. Invoking Section 482 Cr.P.C., the court held these were fit for quashing despite the nature of offences. The quashing was based on settlement principles from Supreme Co

What did the court decide?

The criminal proceedings in C.C.No.347/2019 arising from Crime No.65/2018 were quashed as against the petitioner.

Renuka Vs Sukanya.C.K — Cheque Dishonour | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2023 / 21ST ASWINA, 1945
CRL.MC NO. 5191 OF 2023

¶5

CRIME NO.65/2018 OF VANITHA POLICE STATION, ALAPPUZHA, Alappuzha
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT CC 347/2019 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF

¶6

FIRST CLASS ,AMBALAPUZHA

¶7

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

¶8

RENUKA

¶9

AGED 56 YEARS
W/O ANIRUDHAN, VELLIYIL VEEEDU, KANICHUKULANGARA P.O,
MARAARIKKULAM NORTH PANCHAYATH, WARD NO.5, ALAPPUZHA
DISTRICT,, PIN - 688582

¶10

BY ADV SUBI K.

¶11

RESPONDENT/DE FACTO COMPLAINANT AND STATE :

¶12

1SUKANYA.C.K
AGED 43 YEARS
W/O SAJIMON, AGED 43 YEARS, CHALLIYIL VEEDU,
MARARIKULAM NORTH PANCHAYATH, WARD NO.2,
KANICHUKULANGARA P.O, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT,, PIN - 688582

¶13

2STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031
BY ADV S.R.SREEJITH

¶14

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
13.10.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

CRL.MC NO. 5191 OF 2023 2

¶16

ORDER

¶17

Petitioner is the sole accused in Crime No.65/2018 of Vanitha Police Station, Alappuzha District, alleging commission of offences under Sections 324, 341 and 294(b) of the Indian Penal Code. The matter is now pending as C.C. No.347/2019 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Ambalappuzha.

¶18

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the entire issues between the petitioner and the de facto complainant/ 1^st respondent have been settled. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner also refers to Annexure-A2 affidavit executed by the de facto complainant/ 1^st respondent to establish that the entire issues between the petitioner and the de facto complainant/ 1^st respondent have been settled and the de facto complainant does not intend to continue with the proceedings against the petitioner.

¶19

The learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel appearing for the de facto complainant/ 1^st respondent would confirm that the entire issues between the petitioner and the de facto complainant have been settled and the de facto complainant

¶20

CRL.MC NO. 5191 OF 2023 3

¶21

does not wish to continue with the prosecution in any manner.

¶22

Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the defacto complainant/ 1^st respondent, I am of the view that this is fit case where the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. can be invoked to quash the proceedings against the petitioner on the ground of settlement. The principles governing the circumstances in which this Court can exercise the jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C to quash criminal proceedings in respect of non-compoundable offences is delineated by the judgments of the Supreme Court in Gian Singh V. State of Punjab [(2012) 10 SCC 303] and State of Madhya Pradesh V. Laxmi Narayan and Others [(2019) 5 SCC 688] . It is clear from the reading of the aforesaid judgments that offences of heinous nature cannot be quashed on the ground of subsequent settlement. Here, the nature of the offences does not compel me to hold that the proceedings cannot be quashed on the ground of settlement. No public interest will be served by continuing with the proceedings against the petitioner. It is unlikely that the State will be able to successfully prosecute the case against the petitioner. In that view of the matter, I am of the view that this is fit case

¶23

CRL.MC NO. 5191 OF 2023 4

¶24

where the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. can be invoked to quash the proceedings against the petitioner on the ground of settlement.

¶25

Accordingly, this Crl.M.C. is allowed and all further proceedings in C.C.No.347/2019 on the files the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Ambalapuzha (arising out of Crime No.65/2018 of Vanitha Police Station, Alappuzha District), will stand quashed as against the petitioner.

¶26

Sd/-

¶27

GOPINATH P. JUDGE

¶28

ajt

¶29

CRL.MC NO. 5191 OF 2023 5

¶30

APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 5191/2023

¶31

PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A1CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN C.C.
NO.347 OF 2019 ON THE FILE OF JUDICIAL FIRST
CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, AMBALAPUZHA,
ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT DATED 3.9.2018 WHICH AROSE
FROM CRIME NO.65 OF 2018 OF VANITHA POLICE
STATION, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT
Annexure A2ORIGINAL AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 1ST
RESPONDENT/DE-FACTO COMPLAINANT DATED
07.05.2023

Renuka v. Sukanya.C.K

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Renuka v. Sukanya.C.K

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

Shon P Kurian Vs State of Kerala

Xxx Vs State of Kerala

Risad Vs State of Kerala, Represented by Public Prosecutor

Jayakrishnan.M. Vs State

Nishad Vs State of Kerala

Satheesh Sathyan Vs Renuka