Saneesh V T vs State Of Kerala

Dr. Kauser Edappagath, J

This Crl.M.C. has been preferred to quash Annexure A2 Final Report in C.C.No.482/2017 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court I,

Parappanangadi on the ground of settlement between the parties.

The petitioners are the accused. The 2nd respondent is the de facto complainant.

The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 498(A) and 406 r/w 34 of IPC.

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

I have heard Sri.Nabil Khader, the learned counsel for the petitioners, Smt.Krishna Bindu, the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent and

Smt.T.V.Neema, 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 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 A2 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 further. Accordingly, the Crl.M.C. is

allowed. Annexure A2 Final Report in C.C.No.482/2017 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court I, Parappanangadi stands hereby

quashed.