Allowed

Hareesh v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC13 Jan 2023Crl.MC/78/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed a Criminal Miscellaneous Case seeking quashing of a Final Report for offences under IPC sections 447, 341, 323, 324 r/w 34. Relying on Supreme Court precedents, the Court held that since the dispute was settled and personal, proceedings were quashed under S.482 CrPC.

What did the court decide?

The Crl.M.C. is allowed and Annexure A2 Final Report in C.C.No.899 of 2016 stands quashed.

Hareesh Vs State of Kerala — Quashing and FIR | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 13^TH DAY OF JANUARY 2023 / 23RD POUSHA, 1944

¶5

CRL.MC NO. 78 OF 2023

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC 899/2016 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS - I, NORTH PARAVUR

¶7

PETITIONERS/ ACCUSED 1, 2 & 3:

¶8

1 HAREESH AGED 27 YEARS, THEKKEKKOOTTU HOUSE, EZHIKKARA VILLAGE, NORTH PARUR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, KERALA, PIN - 683513

¶9

2 VIVEK AGED 27 YEARS, S/O. BASKARAN, MANAPPURATHU HOUSE, EZHIKKARA VILLAGE NORTH PARUR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, KERALA, PIN - 683513

¶10

3 AKHIL AGED 26 YEARS, S/O. MURALI, THEKKEKKOOTTU HOUSE, EZHIKKARA VILLAGE NORTH PARUR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, KERALA, PIN - 683513 BY ADV VISHNU DAS

¶11

RESPONDENTS/ STATE & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:

¶12

1 STATE OF KERALA

¶13

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

¶14

2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER NORTH PARAVUR POLICE STATION, NORTH PARAVUR, KERALA, PIN - 683513

¶15

3 GIREESH AGED 42 YEARS, S/O SUTHAN, KALATHIL EZHIKKARA P.O, EZHIKKARA, NANTHIATTUKUNNAM, ERNAKULAM, KERALA, PIN - 683513

¶16

CRL.MC NO. 78 of 2023

¶17

-:2:-

¶18

BY ADVS. SRUTHI DAS MARIA NEETHU T.J(K/000581/2021) ANJITHA ANIL KUMAR(K/000875/2021) ANAGHA A.S.(K/001213/2022)

¶19

P.G MANU SR.P.P

¶20

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13.01.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

CRL.MC NO. 78 of 2023

¶22

-:3:-

¶23

O R D E R

¶24

Dated this the 13 th day of January, 2023

¶25

This Crl.M.C. has been preferred to quash Annexure A2 Final Report in C.C.No.899 of 2016 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, North Paravur on the ground of settlement between the parties.

¶26

The petitioners are the accused Nos. 1 to 3. The 3^rd respondent is the de facto complainant.

¶27

The offences alleged against the petitioners are punishable under Sections 447, 341, 323, 324 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code.

¶28

The 3^rd respondent entered appearance through counsel. An affidavit sworn in by him is also produced.

¶29

I have heard Sri.Vishnu Das, the learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri.Sruthi Das, the learned counsel for the respondent No.3 and Sri.P.G.Manu, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor.

¶30

The averments in the petition as well as the affidavit sworn in by the 3^rd respondent would show that the entire dispute

¶31

CRL.MC NO. 78 of 2023

¶32

-:4:-

¶33

between the parties has been amicably settled and the 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 he reported that the matter was amicably settled.

¶34

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.

¶35

The dispute in the above case is purely personal in

¶36

CRL.MC NO. 78 of 2023

¶37

nature. No public interest or harmony will be adversely affected by quashing the proceedings pursuant to Annexure-A2. 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

¶38

Laxmi Narayan (supra).

¶39

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. AnnexureA2 Final Report in C.C.No.899 of 2016 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, North Paravur hereby stands quashed.

¶40

Sd/-

¶41

DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH JUDGE

¶42

APA

¶43

CRL.MC NO. 78 of 2023

¶44

-:6:-

¶45

APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 78/2023

¶46

PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES

¶47

Annexure A1	THE TRUE COPY	FI	RST INFORMATION REPORT IN
	CRIME NO.866/2	016	OF NORTH PARUR POLICE
	STATION, ERNAKU FIS DATED 25.05	LAM .20	DISTRICT ALONG WITH THE 16
Annexure A2	THE TRUE COPY NO.866/2016 OF ERNAKULAM DISTR	OF NO ICT	THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME RTH PARUR POLICE STATION, DATED 30.05.2016
Annexure A3	THE AFFIDAVIT COMPLAINANT DAT	ED	SWORN BY THE DEFACTO 29.12.2022

Hareesh v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hareesh 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

Asokan Vs State of Kerala

Niveditha Vs Selvadasan

Sandra Maria Vs State of Kerala

Dhanesh Padmanabhan Vs State of Kerala

Muhammed Althaf Vs State of Kerala

Scaria Jose Vs Aswathy Scaria