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
13 paragraphs · 255 wordsPetitioner is the accused in Crime No.1295/2018 registered at the Vellarada Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 451, 354, 323,
294(b), 506(i) and 354D of IPC. The de facto complainant, at whose instance the crime was registered, is arrayed as the 2nd respondent. Annexure-C
affidavit has been filed by 2nd respondent stating that the dispute, which was the reason for the incident and registration of the crime, has been
resolved amicably and she has no subsisting grievance against the petitioner.
Heard the learned Public Prosecutor also, who, on instructions, submits that the petitioner has no criminal antecedents.
Having considered the gravity of the offences alleged, nature of the injury caused and having perused the affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent, the
contents of which are submitted to be true and voluntary, I am satisfied that the dispute is settled and no public interest is involved in this matter.
Moreover, in view of the settlement, possibility of the criminal proceedings ending in conviction is remote. As such, continuance of the proceedings will
amount to an abuse of process of court and hence, in view of the legal position set out by the Honourable Supreme Court in Madan Mohan Abbot v.
State of Punjab [(2008) 4 SCC 582] and Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another [(2012) 10 SCC 303,] there is no impediment in granting the relief
sought.
In the result, this Crl.M.C is allowed. Annexure-A FIR and the proceedings in Crime No.1295/2018 registered at the Vellarada Police Station is
quashed.