SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Santhosh vs State Of Kerala on 24 October, 2019

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS

THURSDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2019 / 2ND KARTHIKA, 1941

Crl.MC.No.6828 OF 2019(C)

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CP 2/2018 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF
FIRST CLASS -I, NEDUMANGAD

CRIME NO.358/2017 OF NEDUMANGAD POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

SANTHOSH
AGED 40 YEARS, S/O. VARGHESE,
SUMIBHAVAN, KARANTHALA,
KARIPOOR VILLAGE,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT

BY ADV. SRI.P.ANOOP (MULAVANA)

RESPONDENTS/STATE, DE FACTO COMPLAINANT:

1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM – 682 031

2 MINI, AGED 36 YEARS,
D/O. AGNES, SUMIBHAVAN, NJAVARAPPARA, THADATHARIKATHU
VEEDU, KARIPPOOR VILLAGE, NEDUMANGAD,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT – 695 001

3 GLISTUS, AGED 45 YEARS,
S/O. ROBINSON, 222, PARAMUKAL VEEDU, KARIPPOOR.P.O.,
KARIPPOOR VILLAGE,
NEDUMANGAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT – 695 001

R2-3 BY ADV. A.CHANDRA BABU
SRI.P.N.SUMODU, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
24.10.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.MC.No.6828 OF 2019(C)

2

ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.

Crl.M.C.No.6828 of 2019
———————————–
Dated this the 24th day of October, 2019

ORDER

The petitioner herein has been arrayed as the sole accused in Crime

No.358/2017 of Nedumangad Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram,

registered for offences punishable under Secs.294(b), 341, 323, 498A, 308,

427 506(ii) of the Indian Penal Code, which led to the institution of

Annexure-A1 final report in C.P.No.2/2018 on the file of the Judicial First

Class Magistrate’s Court-I, Nedumangad. It is stated that now the entire

disputes between the petitioner herein and the 2 nd respondent de facto

complainant and the 3rd respondent, brother of the defacto complainant

have been settled amicably and that respondents 2 3 have sworn to

Annexures-A2 A3 affidavits before this Court, wherein it is stated that

they have settled the entire disputes with the petitioner and that they have

no objection for quashment of the impugned criminal proceedings pending

against the petitioner. It is in the light of these aspects that the petitioner

has preferred the instant Crl.M.C. with the prayer to quash the impugned
Crl.MC.No.6828 OF 2019(C)

3

criminal proceedings against him.

2. In a catena of decisions, the Apex Court has held that, in

appropriate cases involving even non-compoundable offences, the High

Court can quash prosecution by exercise of the powers under Sec.482 of the

Cr.P.C., if the parties have really settled the whole dispute or if the

continuance of the prosecution will not serve any purpose. Here, this Court

finds a real case of settlement between the parties and it is also found that

continuance of the prosecution in such a situation will not serve any

purpose other than wasting the precious time of the court, when the case

ultimately comes before the court. On a perusal of the petition and on a

close scrutiny of the investigation materials on record and the affidavit of

settlement and taking into account the attendant facts and circumstances of

this case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the legal principles

laid down by the Apex Court in the cases as in Gian Singh v. State of

Punjab reported in 2013 (1) SCC (Cri) 160 (2012) 10 SCC 303 and

Narinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and anr. reported in

(2014) 6 SCC 466, more particularly paragraph 29 thereof, could be applied

in this case to consider the prayer for quashment.
Crl.MC.No.6828 OF 2019(C)

4

3. Accordingly, it is ordered in the interest of justice that the

impugned Crime No.358/2017 of Nedumangad Police Station,

Thiruvananthapuram, which led to the institution of Annexure-A1 final

report in C.P.No.2/2018 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate’s

Court-I, Nedumangad and all further proceedings arising therefrom

pending against the accused will stand quashed.

4. The petitioner will produce certified copies of this order to the

Investigating Officer concerned and the competent court below concerned.

Office of Advocate General will forward a copy of this order to the

Investigating Officer concerned, for necessary information.

With these observations and directions, the above Criminal

Miscellaneous Case stands finally disposed of.

Sd/-

ALEXANDER THOMAS
JUDGE
vgd
Crl.MC.No.6828 OF 2019(C)

5

APPENDIX

PETITIONER’S/S EXHIBITS:

ANNEXURE A1 TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CP 2/2018
BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE
COURT-1, NEDUMANGAD

ANNEXURE A2 TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT

ANNEXURE A3 TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE 3RD
RESPONDENT

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2020 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation