Allowed

Shyamalan v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC3 Jan 2023Crl.MC/9337/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a criminal miscellaneous petition to quash the final report in a private complaint. The offences punishable under IPC Sections 294(b) and 509 were dismissed as the dispute between the petitioner and the de facto complainant was amicably settled, and quashing was warranted to ensure justice.

What did the court decide?

The Crl.M.C. is allowed. The Annexure A2 Final Report in C.C.No.1293/2017 is quashed.

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

¶1

CRL.MC NO. 9337 OF 2022

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH TUESDAY, THE 3^RD DAY OF JANUARY 2023 / 13TH POUSHA, 1944

¶6

CRL.MC NO. 9337 OF 2022

¶7

AGAINST C.C.NO.1293/2017 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE
COURT VIII, ERNAKULAM

¶8

PETITIONER:

¶9

SHYAMALAN
AGED 63 YEARS
S/O.VELU, KAITHAVALAPPIL HOUSE,
KADAMANGALAM, EZHIKKARA VILLAGE,
NORTH PARAVOOR P.O., PIN - 683513
BY ADVS.
P.V.ANILKUMAR
KEERTHI PRIYA A.

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

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

¶12

2THILOTHAMA RAJAGOPALAN
AGED 74 YEARS
W/O.RAJAGOPALAN (LATE),
PUTHANVEETTIL, PONNURUNNI,
VYTTILA P.O., ERNAKULAM,, PIN - 682019

¶13

R1 BY SMT T V NEEMA -SR PP

¶14

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
03.01.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

CRL.MC NO. 9337 OF 2022

¶16

¶17

O R D E R

¶18

This Crl.M.C. has been preferred to quash Annexure A2 Final Report in C.C.No.1293/2017 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court VIII, Ernakulam on the ground of settlement

¶19

between the parties.

¶20

The petitioner is the accused. The 2^nd respondent is the de facto complainant.

¶21

The offences alleged against the petitioner are punishable

¶22

under Sections 294(b) and 509 of IPC.

¶23

An affidavit sworn in by the de facto complainant is produced.

¶24

I have heard Sri.P.V.Anil Kumar, the learned counsel for

¶25

the petitioner and Smt.T.V.Neema, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor.

¶26

The averments in the petition as well as the affidavit sworn in by the respondent No.2 would show that the entire

¶27

dispute between the parties has been amicably settled and the de

¶28

CRL.MC NO. 9337 OF 2022

¶29

¶30

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 she reported that the matter was amicably settled.

¶31

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.

¶32

The dispute in the above case is purely personal in

¶33

nature. No public interest or harmony will be adversely affected by

¶34

CRL.MC NO. 9337 OF 2022

¶35

¶36

quashing the proceedings pursuant to Annexure A2 Final Report. The offences in question do 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 Laxmi Narayan (supra).

¶37

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 A2 Final Report in C.C.No.1293/2017 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court VIII, Ernakulam hereby stands quashed.

¶38

Sd/-

¶39

DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH JUDGE

¶40

¶41

CRL.MC NO. 9337 OF 2022

¶42

¶43

APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 9337/2022

¶44

PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure-A1CERTIFIED COPY OF COMPLAINT FILED BY THE
DEFACTO COMPLAINANT BEFORE THE SUB
INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KADAVATHRA POLICE
STATION WHICH WAS PENDING AS
C.C.NO.1293/2017 PENDING BEFORE THE
JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-
VIII, ERNAKULAM.
Annexure-A2ACCUSED COPY OF FINAL REPORT/CHARGE SHEET
IN F.I.R.649/2017 SUBMITTED BEFORE
JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE-VIII
COURT, ERNAKULAM.
Annexure-A3THE ORIGINAL AFFIDAVIT OF RESPONDENT
NO.2, DTD. 09/11/2022.

¶45

RESPONDENTS ANNEXURES: NIL

Shyamalan v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shyamalan 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Isubu Ziyad Vs State of Kerala

Xxx Vs State of Kerala

Philomina @ Philograce Vs State of Kerala

Abdul Rahman K.A Vs State of Kerala

Musthafa Vs State of Kerala

Jacob @ Sabu Vs State of Kerala