Ansar vs State Of Kerala

Dr. Kauser Edappagath, J

This Crl.M.C. has been preferred to quash Annexure II Final Report in Crime No.4277/2017 of Karunagappally Police Station on the ground of settlement between the parties.

The  petitioners  are  the  accused  Nos.1  to  6.  The  1st respondent is the de facto complainant.

The offences alleged against the petitioners are punishable under Sections 498A, 323 and 494 r/w 34 of IPC.

The respondent No.1 entered appearance through counsel. An affidavit sworn in by her is also produced.

I have heard Sri.Gokul Das V.V.H, the learned counsel for the petitioners, Smt.Ameera.R, the learned counsel for the respondent No.1 and Smt.T.V.Neema, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor.

The  averments  in  the  petition  as  well  as  the  affidavit sworn in by the respondent No.1 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 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 II 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 II Final Report in Crime No.4277/2017 of Karunagappally Police Station hereby stands quashed.