Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 164 (KER)

Adwaith v. State of Kerala

2022-02-15

KAUSER EDAPPAGATH

body2022
ORDER : This Crl.M.C has been preferred to quash Annexure A1 FIR in Crime No.2653/2021 of Varkala Police Station on the ground of settlement between the parties. 2. The petitioner is the 2nd accused. The 2nd respondent is the de facto complainant. 3. All together there are three accused. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 341, 294(b), 323, 506, 354 and 427 r/w 34 of IPC. 4. The respondent Nos.2 and 3 entered appearance through counsel. The affidavits sworn in by them are produced as Annexures A2 and A3. 5. I have heard Sri.P.Anoop, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri.A.Chandra Babu, the learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2 and 3 and Smt.T.V.Neema, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor. 6. The Supreme Court in Lovely Salhotra & another v. State NCT of Delhi & another (Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.1666/2017 dated 10.4.2017) was pleased to quash the proceedings as against one of the accused alone on the ground of settlement. That was a case where the High Court refused to quash the proceedings holding that the FIR cannot be quashed in part. This Court in Sreejith v. State of Kerala and another (Crl.3343/2021 dated 10.8.2021) was also pleased to quash the proceedings as against one of the accused alone on the ground of settlement. 7. The averments in the petition as well as the affidavit sworn in by the respondent Nos.2 and 3 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. 8. 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. 8. 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. 9. 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. The entire proceedings as against the petitioner alone in Crime No.2653/2021 of Varkala Police Station stands hereby quashed.