Lal Kumar vs State Of Kerala

Dr Kauser Edappagath, J

This  CrI.M.C. has  been preferred  to  quash  Annexure-2 Final Report in C.C.No.648/2021 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Attingal on the ground of settlement between the parties.

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

The offence alleged against the petitioner is punishable under Section 498A of the IPC.

The  respondent  No.2  entered  appearance  through counsel. An affidavit sworn in by her is also produced.

I have heard Sri.K.B.Udayakumar, the learned counsel for  the petitioner, Sri.C.M.Kammappu, the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 and Smt.T.V.Neema, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor for the respondent No.l.

The averments in the petition as well as the affidavit sworn  in  by the  respondent No.2  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  4661 and in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan and Others [(2019)  5 SCC 6881  has held that the High Court by invoking

5.482  of Cr.P.0 can  quash  criminal  proceedings  in  relation  to non compoundable offence where the parties have settled the matter between themselves notwithstanding the bar  under 5.320 of Cr.P.C. if it is warranted in the given facts and circumstances of the case  or to  ensure 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 in C.C.No.648/2021 on the file of the Judicial First Class  Magistrate  Court-II,  Attingal.  The  offence  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 CrI.M.C. is allowed. Annexure-2 Final Report in C.C.No.648/2021 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Attingal hereby stands quashed.