Abraham P.A vs State Of Kerala

Dr. Kauser Edappagath, J

This Crl.M.C. has been preferred to quash Annexure 2 Final Report in S.T.No.2422/2019 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court I, Pala on the ground of settlement between the parties.

The  petitioners  are  the  accused  Nos.1  and  2. The  2nd respondent is the de facto complainant.

The offences alleged against the petitioners are punishable under Sections 341, 323, 294(b) and 506 r/w 34 of IPC.

I have heard Sri.Baby Thomas, the learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri.P.G.Manu, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor.

The son of the petitioners and the 2nd respondent entered into an agreement for settling the entire dispute in connection with their matrimonial relationship, which has been produced as Annexure 3. In the said agreement, it is specifically stated that the 2nd respondent does not want to continue with the above case. 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.

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.

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 2 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).

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 2 Final Report in S.T.No.2422/2019 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court I, Pala hereby stands quashed.