Saburaj P.G vs State Of Kerala

Dr. Kauser Edappagath, J

This Crl.M.C. has been preferred to quash Annexure B Final Report in C.C.No.547/2016 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Ettumanoor on the ground of settlement between the parties.

The petitioner is the accused. The 3rd respondent is the defacto complainant. The 4th respondent is the daughter of the 3rd respondent.

The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 452, 341, 323 and 354 of IPC.

The respondent Nos. 3 and 4 entered appearance through counsel. Affidavits sworn in by them are also produced.

I have heard Sri. Binoy Vasudevan, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Adv. Raji P. Joy, the learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 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 Nos. 3 and 4 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 crime 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 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 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 B. 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 further. Accordingly, the Crl.M.C. is allowed. Annexure B Final Report in C.C.No.547/2016 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Ettumanoor stands hereby quashed.