Muhammed Dildash vs State Of Kerala

Dr. Kauser Edappagath, J

This Crl.M.C. has been preferred to quash Annexure-2 Final Report in CC.No.976/2022 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Thaliparamba on the ground of settlement between the parties.

The petitioners are the accused Nos.1 to 3. The 2nd respondent is the de facto complainant.

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

The 2nd respondent entered appearance through counsel. An affidavit sworn in by her is also produced.

I have heard Sri.Bhadra Kumari, the learned counsel for the petitioners, Smt.Mumthas Kakkat Valappil, the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent and Sri.P.G.Manu, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor.

The averments in the petition as well as the affidavit sworn in by the 2nd respondent 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-2. 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 Crl.M.C. is allowed. Annexure-2 Final Report in CC.No.976/2022 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Thaliparamba hereby stands quashed.