High CourtsSingle Bench

Ajas vs State Of Kerala

High Court Of Kerala · Decided on 16 June 2021 · Citation: (2021) 06 KL CK 0239

HON’BLE JUDGES
N.Anil Kumar, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 294(b), 323, 324, 341
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 5354 Of 2019
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

22 paragraphs · 411 words

N.Anil Kumar, J

1.

This Crl.M.C. is filed seeking to quash Annexure A final report and all further proceedings pursuant thereto in Crime No.2638/2017 of

Perumbavoor Police Station, which is now pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Perumbavoor against the petitioner as

C.C.No.556/2017.

2.

The petitioner is an accused in Crime No.2638/2017 of Perumbavoor Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 341,323,324 and

294(b) of the Indian Penal Code. The above case was registered on the basis of a statement given by the second respondent before the Police. After

investigation, the Police filed final report in Crime No.2638/2017 of Perumbavoor Police Station, which is now pending before the Judicial First Class

Magistrate Court-I, Perumbavoor. The learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 341,323, 324 and 294(b) of the

Indian Penal Code.3. The prosecution case in brief is that the petitioner, on 14.8.2017 at 11 am, assaulted the second respondent with a key at

Perumbavoor and thereby committed the aforesaid offences.

4.

I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the first respondent.

5.

During the pendency of the proceedings, the entire dispute between the petitioner and second respondent had been settled. The second respondent

filed an affidavit before this Court stating that the entire dispute, which resulted in the registration of the above crime, had already been amicably

settled. The second respondent has no subsisting grievance against the petitioner.

 6. The dispute between the parties is purely private and personal in nature and no public policy as such is involved in the matter. The main

offences involved in this case are compoundable. When the offences being purely private and personal between the parties, the proceedings can be

quashed in the interest of justice on the basis of the settlement and in the light of the dictum laid down in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab [(2012)10 SCC

303], Narinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and anothe r[(2014)6 SCC 466], Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai

Karmur and others v. State of Gujarat and another [(2017)9 SCC 641] and State of M.P. v. Laxmi Narayan and others [(2019)5 SCC 688].

 In the result, this Crl.M.C. stands allowed. Annexure- A Final Report and all further proceedings pursuant thereto in

Crime No.2638/2017 of Perumbavoor Police station, which is now pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Perumbavoor against the

petitioner as C.C.No.556/2017 stands quashed.