Santhosh vs State Of Kerala

Dr Kauser Edappagath, J

This Crl.M.C. has been preferred to quash Annexure A1 Final Report in Crime No. 446/2012 of Chengannur Police Station and all further

proceedings in C.C.No. 666/2021 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Chengannur on the ground of settlement between the

parties.

The petitioner is the accused. The 2nd respondent is the defacto complainant.

The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 498A and 494 of IPC.

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

I have heard Sri. K.V. Anil Kumar, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri. Ajith Murali, the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 and Sri.

M.P. Prasanth, the learned Public Prosecutor.

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 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 A1. 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 A1 Final Report in Crime No. 446/2012 of Chengannur Police Station and all further proceedings in C.C.No. 666/2021 on the files

of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Chengannur stands hereby quashed.