Allowed

Abraham Joseph v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC4 Jan 2023Crl.MC/9327/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court allowed a criminal miscellaneous petition filed by an accused to quash the FIR of Nilambur police. The Court relied on Supreme Court precedents involving Section 482 CrPC to hold that proceedings can be quashed upon settlement of personal offences to prevent abuse of process.

What did the court decide?

Annexure-A1 F.I.R. in Crime No.790/2022 of Nilambur Police Station was quashed.

Abraham Joseph Vs State of Kerala — Cheque Dishonour | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH WEDNESDAY, THE 4^TH DAY OF JANUARY 2023 / 14TH POUSHA, 1944 CRL.MC NO. 9327 OF 2022

¶4

(CRIME NO.790/2022 OF NILAMBUR POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM) PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

¶5

ABRAHAM JOSEPH AGED 80 YEARS, S/O. JOSEPH, VELLOTTIL HOUSE, PULIKKALODI, VADAPURAM P.O., NILAMBUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 676542

¶6

BY ADVS. SUNIL KUMAR A.G GEORGE MATHEW PRAVEEN S. MATHEW K.T. GEORGE K.V.

¶7

RESPONDENTS/ STATE & DE-FACTO COMPLAINANT:

¶8

1 STATE OF KERALA REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031 2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER NILAMBUR POLICE STATION, NILAMBUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 679329 3 SHARAON P. JOSEPH PLAVILLAYIL AGED 24 YEARS, D/O. JOSEPH PLAVILLAYIL, PLAVILLAYIL HOUSE, KARULAYI, KARULAYI P.O., NILAMBUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN – 679331

¶9

SMT T V NEEMA – SR PP

¶10

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04.01.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶11

CRL.MC NO. 9327 of 2022

¶12

-:2:-

¶13

O R D E R

¶14

Dated this the 4 th day of January, 2023

¶15

This Crl.M.C. has been preferred to quash Annexure-A1 F.I.R. in Crime No.790/2022 of Nilambur Police Station on the ground of settlement between the parties.

¶16

The petitioner is the accused. The 3^rd respondent is the de facto complainant.

¶17

The offences alleged against the petitioner are punishable under Sections 354-A(2) and 509 of Indian Penal Code.

¶18

An affidavit sworn in by the 3^rd respondent is also produced.

¶19

I have heard Shri.Sunil Kumar A.G., the learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt.T.V.Neema, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor.

¶20

The averments in the petition as well as the affidavit sworn in by the 3^rd respondent would show that the entire dispute between the parties has been amicably settled and the de facto complainant has decided not to proceed with the criminal

¶21

CRL.MC NO. 9327 of 2022

¶22

-:3:-

¶23

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.

¶24

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.

¶25

The dispute in the above case is purely personal in nature. No public interest or harmony will be adversely affected by quashing the proceedings pursuant to Annexure-A1. The

¶26

CRL.MC NO. 9327 of 2022

¶27

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

¶28

Laxmi Narayan (supra).

¶29

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-A1 F.I.R. in Crime No.790/2022 of Nilambur Police Station hereby stands quashed.

¶30

Sd/-

¶31

DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH JUDGE

¶32

APA

¶33

CRL.MC NO. 9327 of 2022

¶34

-:5:-

¶35

APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 9327/2022

¶36

PETITIONERS' ANNEXURES

¶37

Annexure A1 TRUE COPY OF F.I.R ALONG WITH F.I STATEMENT DTD. 24.10.2022 IN CR. NO.790 OF 2022 OF NILAMBUR POLICE STATION Annexure A2 NOTARIZED AFFIDAVIT DTD. 22.11.2022 SWORN IN BY 3RD RESPONDENT Annexure A3 NOTARIZED AFFIDAVIT DTD. 22.11.2022 SWORN IN BY 3RD RESPONDENT'S PARENTS Annexure A4 NOTARIZED AFFIDAVIT DTD. 22.11.2022 SWORN IN BY 3RD RESPONDENT'S TEACHER

Abraham Joseph v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abraham Joseph 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

Abdul Rahman K.A Vs State of Kerala

Musthafa Vs State of Kerala

Shyamalan Vs State of Kerala

Abdul Muneer a P Vs State of Kerala

Prasannakumar Vs State of Kerala

Harikumar Vs State of Kerala