Alka Soly Prakash vs State Of Kerala

Dr. Kauser Edappagath, J

This Crl.M.C. has been preferred to quash Annexure-II Final Report in C.C.No. 89 of 2018 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-IV, Kozhikode on the ground of settlement between the parties.

The petitioner is the accused. The 2nd respondent is the de facto complainant and the 3rd respondent is the injured.

The offences alleged against the petitioner are punishable under Sections 341, 323, 448, 294(b) and 427 of Indian Penal Code.

The respondents 2 and 3 entered appearance through counsel. Affidavits sworn in by them are also produced.

I have heard Sri.Girish Kumar M.S., the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri.Adithya Rajeev, the learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2 and 3 and Smt.T.V.Neema, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor.

The averments in the petition as well as the affidavits sworn in by the 2nd and 3rd respondents 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 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.

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-II. 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 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-II Final Report in C.C.No. 89 of 2018 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-IV, Kozhikode hereby stands quashed.