High CourtsSingle Bench

Sandeep Yadav vs State Of Kerala

High Court Of Kerala · Decided on 19 April 2024 · Citation: (2024) 04 KL CK 0164

HON’BLE JUDGES
C.Pratheep Kumar, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 438 · Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 294(b), 323, 341, 354
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 2431 Of 2024
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

8 paragraphs · 317 words

C. Pratheep Kumar J.

1.

This is a petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, by the sole accused in Crime No.67 of 2024 of Nooranadu Police Station, Alappuzha. The offences alleged against the petitioners are punishable under Sections 294(b), 341, 323 and 354 of Indian Penal Code.

2.

The prosecution case is that in pursuance to the strained relations between the accused and the 2nd respondent/defacto complainant, the accused had hurled abusive words at the defacto complainant over phone and had wrongfully restrained and voluntarily caused hurt to her.

3.

According to the petitioner, the dispute has been settled with the defacto complainant/victim and the petitioner. Both of them agreed to drop all further proceedings relating to the above dispute. Therefore, he prayed for quashing all further proceedings in Annexure A FIR.

4.

The defacto complainant/victim filed and affidavit endorsing the averments in the Criminal MC. According to her, the case has been amicably settled and that she doesnot intend to proceed with the case and also that further proceedings in the case can be quashed. She has no further grievance against the petitioners.

5.

Learned Public Prosecutor also stated that the dispute has been settled between the parties and hence further proceedings in the case can be quashed. Signed statement of the defacto complainant also has been filed, which substantiates the averments in her affidavit.

6.

Considering the fact that the offences under Sections 294(b), 341, 323 and 354 of Indian Penal Code involved in this case are not heinous and very serious in nature, and the dispute has been settled between the petitioners and defacto complainant, this is a fit case in which further proceedings can be quashed.

In the result, This Crl. M.C is allowed. All further proceedings on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II Mavelikkara Court arising from Crime No.67/2024 of Nooranadu Police Station, is quashed.