Shiju Neelakandan vs State Of Kerala

Dr. Kauser Edappagath, J

This Crl.M.C. has been preferred to quash Annexure A Final Report in C.C.No.336/2012 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court,

Thiruvalla on the ground of settlement between the parties.

The petitioner is the accused. The 2nd respondent is the de facto complainant.

The offence alleged against the petitioner is under Section 498A of IPC.

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

I have heard Sri.T.P.Pradeep, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri.Reviprasad.R, the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent 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 A Final Report. The offence in question does 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 A Final Report in C.C.No.336/2012 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Thiruvalla stands hereby quashed.