Allowed

Prince Joy v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC5 Dec 2023Crl.MC/5927/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Criminal Misc. Case sought quashing of FIRs under Sections 465, 468, 471 and 34 of IPC due to a settlement. The Court held the dispute personal, no serious offence involved, and settlement voluntary. Invoking Section 482 CrPC, proceedings were quashed to prevent abuse of process.

What did the court decide?

Annexure AIII FIR in Crime No.517/2019 of Hosdurg Police Station and all further proceedings pursuant to it stand hereby quashed.

Prince Joy Vs State of Kerala — Cheating and Forgery | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

CRL.MC NO. 5927 OF 2023

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. BABU

¶6

TUESDAY, THE 5^TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2023 / 14TH AGRAHAYANA,

¶7

1945

¶8

CRL.MC NO. 5927 OF 2023

¶9

CRIME NO.517/2019 OF HOSDURG POLICE STATION, KASARAGOD

¶10

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED:

¶11

1 PRINCE JOY, AGED 29 YEARS SON OF JOY, MUPRAPPILLIL HOUSE, PARIYARAM, PANATHUR, PANATHADI VILLAGE, RAJAPURAM, KASARAGOD DISTRICT, PIN - 671532

¶12

2 SAM THOMAS, AGED 40 YEARS SON OF THOMAS, KUNNATHUPOTHIYIL HOUSE, PARIYARAM, PANATHUR, PANATHADI VILLAGE, RAJAPURAM, KASARAGOD DISTRICT, PIN - 671532

¶13

BY ADVS.

¶14

A.ARUNKUMAR

¶15

S.SHYAM KUMAR HEERAKRISHNA T.H.

¶16

SACHIN GEORGE ARAMBAN

¶17

RESPONDENTS:

¶18

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

¶19

2 JENCY MATHEW, AGED 39 YEARS DAUGHTER OF MATHEW P.D, PULIKKAPADAVIL HOUSE, CHITTARIKKAL VILLAGE AND POST, VELLARIKUNDU TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT, PIN – 671326

¶20

R1 BY SRI.N.R.SANGEETHA RAJ-PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
R2 BY SRI.VIPIN T.JOSE

¶21

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05.12.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

CRL.MC NO. 5927 OF 2023

¶23

¶24

K.BABU, J .

¶25

Crl.M.C.No.5927 of 2023

¶26

Dated this the 5^th day of December, 2023

¶27

O R D E R

¶28

The prayer in this Crl.M.C. is to quash Annexure AIII FIR in

¶29

Crime No.517/2019 of Hosdurg Police Station and all further proceedings pursuant to it on the ground that the parties have

¶30

arrived at a settlement in respect of the subject matter.

¶31

The petitioners are accused Nos.1 and 2.

¶32

The offences alleged against the petitioners are punishable

¶33

under Sections 465, 468, 471 and 34 of IPC.

¶34

Respondent No.2, the defacto complainant entered

¶35

appearance through counsel. An affidavit sworn to by her has also

¶36

been placed before this Court.

¶37

Heard both sides.

¶38

I have perused the averments in the petition and the

¶39

affidavit sworn to by respondent No.2.

¶40

The learned Public Prosecutor, on instructions, submitted

¶41

that the matter was enquired into through the Investigating Officer,

¶42

CRL.MC NO. 5927 OF 2023

¶43

¶44

who has taken 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.

¶45

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. Laxmi 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 non-compoundable offences, where the parties have settled the matter between themselves notwithstanding the bar under Section 320 of Cr.P.C., 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.

¶46

In the instant case, the dispute is purely personal in nature. There is nothing to show that public interest will be compromised by

¶47

CRL.MC NO. 5927 OF 2023

¶48

¶49

quashing the proceedings. The offences in question do not fall within the category of serious offences or heinous offences.

¶50

The offences in the present case do not fall within the category of offences prohibited for granting permission to compromise

¶51

in terms of the pronouncement of the Apex Court in Gian Singh (supra), Narinder Singh (supra) and Laxmi Narayan (supra).

¶52

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

¶53

Resultantly, the Crl.M.C is allowed. Annexure AIII FIR in Crime No.517/2019 of Hosdurg Police Station and all further

¶54

proceedings pursuant to it stand hereby quashed.

Sd/-

K.BABU, JUDGE

CRL.MC NO. 5927 OF 2023

¶59

¶60

APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 5927/2023

¶61

PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure AICERTIFIED COPY OF THE F.I.R IN CRIME
NO.159 OF 2019 OF RAJAPURAM POLICE
STATION, KASARAGOD
Annexure AIITHE AFFIDAVIT SWORN TO BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT
Annexure AIIICERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME
NO.517 OF 2019 OF HOSDURG POLICE
STATION

¶62

RESPONDENTS ANNEXURES: NIL

Prince Joy v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prince Joy 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

N. Sreekumar Vs State of Kerala

Thottasseri Venugopala Kurup & Others Vs Thottasseri Balakrishna Kurup,(Died) (Lrs Impleaded)

Sri.G.Sasidharan Vs the State of Kerala & Others

Sauri Vs Ammukutty Amma

Brajith Joseph Vs State of Kerala

Rajesh Sudersan Vs Sivaraman E.R.