High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2023-05-31Quashed; the Final Report and all further proce...

CRL.M.C. Nos. 4594/2018 & 6140/2018, High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam

Case / Petition Number:Crl.M.C. Nos. 4594/2018 & 6140/2018

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: K. Babu
Judgment Date: 2023-05-31
Court Decision / Holding: The Crl.M.C Nos. 4594/2018 and 6140/2018 are allowed. Annexure 2 Final Report in Crime No.1807/2017 and all further proceedings in C.C. No.682/2018 before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offences), Ernakulam are quashed.
Final Disposition: Quashed; the Final Report and all further proceedings are quashed in relation to Crime No.1807/2017 and C.C No.682/2018.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

ROOHPREET SINGH @ SHINY
HARJITH KAUR
PARAMJIT SINGH
GAGNEET KAUR
PUNEET KAUR
SANDEEP SINGH
GANGANDEEP SINGH
KARAM BIR KAUR

Respondents

State of Kerala
ESHWIN KAUR

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• M.M. BABY
• JOHNY K. JOHN(K/000425/2013)

Counsels for Respondents

• SMT. PUSHPALATHA, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
• SRI. RAJEE P MATHEWS

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a pair of Criminal Miscellaneous Cases before Justice K. Babu of the Kerala High Court arising from quashing proceedings in Crime No.1807/2017 of Town South Police Station, Ernakulam, and the connected C.C.No.682/2018 before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offences), Ernakulam. The petitioners, who are accused in the underlying matter, contend that the dispute with the defacto complainant, Eshwin Kaur, has been amicably settled, and that the entire settlement is voluntary, fair, and free of coercion. The facts indicate that the defacto complainant has decided not to proceed further, and an affidavit to that effect has been placed on record. The High Court heard arguments from both sides and noted that the offence alleged under Section 498-A IPC is non‑compoundable, yet the matter is essentially personal, with no public interest at stake. Relying on Supreme Court precedents Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, and State of Madhya Pradesh v. Lakshmi Narayan, the court held that Section 482 Cr.P.C. powers permit quashing non‑compoundable offences where settlement is genuine and ends of justice require it, to prevent abuse of process. The court concluded that continuing proceedings would serve no purpose and allowed the petitions, quashing the Final Report and all further proceedings.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 498-A IPCSection 482 Cr.P.CSection 320 Cr.P.C

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Ends of justice
Prevention of abuse of the process of the court
Settlement between the parties should satisfy the conscience of the court

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The applicants submit that the dispute between the parties has been amicably settled and the defacto complainant, Eshwin Kaur, has sworn to not continuing the case. The offence under Section 498-A IPC is non‑compoundable, but the settlement is voluntary, fair, and satisfies the conscience of the Court. Since the matter is primarily private, there is no public interest to be subserved by continuing proceedings, and coercive legal action would amount to harassment. The Supreme Court precedents in Gian Singh, Narinder Singh, and Lakshmi Narayan permit quashing non‑compoundable offences when there is a bona fide settlement, to ensure ends of justice and prevent abuse of process. The settlement reflects the free will of the victim, with no pressure, and the Court should exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash the proceedings and final report to give effect to the settlement.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents contend that the dispute is settled amicably and the defacto complainant desires withdrawal; the affidavit supports this stance. While the offence is non‑compoundable, the Court has the jurisdiction to quash under Section 482 Cr.P.C if ends of justice require it and there is no public interest at stake. The matter involves a private, non-serious offense, and the settlement should be recognized to avoid harassment and conserve judicial resources. The P.P. and the concerned authorities do not oppose quashing given the settlement and the lack of public interest concerns.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab	2012 (4) KLT 108 (SC)	Positive	Cited as authority that High Courts can quash non-compoundable offences under Section 482 Cr.P.C when there is a settlement to advance ends of justice and prevent abuse of process.
Narinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and Others	(2014) 6 SCC 466	Positive	Cited for the principle that settlement can justify quashing non-compoundable offences to serve ends of justice.
State of Madhya Pradesh v. Lakshmi Narayan and Others	(2019) 5 SCC 688	Positive	Cited in the same context to allow quashing in light of settlement and ends of justice.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against CRL.M.C. Nos. 4594/2018 & 6140/2018, High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. BABU** **WEDNESDAY, THE 31[ST] DAY OF MAY 2023 / 10TH JYAISHTA, 1945** **CRL.MC NO. 4594 OF 2018** **AGAINST C.C NO.682/2018 OF ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE** ## **COURT (ECONOMIC OFFENCES), ERNAKULAM** ## **PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1:** ROOHPREET SINGH @ SHINY, AGED 32 YEARS, S/O.PRAMJITH SINGH, WAHEGURU VILLA, 63,VASAVI COLONY, GURU NANAK NAGAR, VIJAYAWADA, (M.CORP) (PART) TN, VIJAYAWADA - 520 008, ANDHRAPRADESH. BY ADVS. M.M.BABY, JOHNY K. JOHN(K/000425/2013) ## **RESPONDENTS/STATE/COMPLAINANT:** 1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 682 031. 2 ESHWIN KAUR, AGED 33 YEARS, W/O.ROOPHREET SINGH,ESH-TASH BUNGLOW, IIND FLOOR, 14TH PARAMBITHARA CROSS ROAD, OP. MAISON DIOR APARTMENTS, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, COCHIN - 682 036. BY ADV SMT.PUSHPALATHA, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.RAJEE P MATHEWS THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31.05.2023, ALONG WITH Crl.MC.6140/2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Crl.M.C.No.4594 & 6140 of 2018 2 ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. BABU WEDNESDAY, THE 31[ST] DAY OF MAY 2023 / 10TH JYAISHTA, 1945 CRL.MC NO. 6140 OF 2018 AGAINST CC 682/2018 OF ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE** ## **COURT (E&O), ERNAKULAM** ## **PETITIONERS/ACCUSED:** 1 HARJITH KAUR, AGED 64 YEARS, W/O.PARAMJITH SINGH, 2ND FLOOR WAHEGURU VILLA, VASAVI COLONY, OPP. GURUDWARA ROAD, VIJAYAWADA-520 008, ANDHRAPRADESH. 2 PARAMJIT SINGH, AGED 65 YEARS, S/O.HARBHAN SINGH, 2ND FLOOR WAHEGURU VILLA, VASAVI COLONY, OPP. GURUDWARA ROAD, VIJAYAWADA-520 008, ANDHRAPRADESH. 3 GAGNEET KAUR, AGED 40 YEARS, (WRONGLY SHOWN AS NEERU KAUR IN THE FIR AND FINAL REPORT), W/O.SANDEEP SINGH, 2ND FLOOR, SANTHI APARTMENTS, NEAR SAI BABA TEMPLE RING ROAD,VIJAYAWADA-520 008, ANDHRAPRADESH. 4 PUNEET KAUR, AGED 39 YEARS, W/O.GANGANDEEP, 2ND FLOOR, SUDARSHAN APARTMENTS, BANDA ROAD, VIJAYAWADA-520008, ANDHRAPRADESH. 5 SANDEEP SINGH, AGED 43 YEARS, S/O.AMARJITH SINGH, 2ND FLOOR, SANTHI APARTMENTS, NEAR SAI BANDA TEMPLE RING ROAD, VIJAYAWADA-520008, ANDHRAPRADESH. 6 GANGANDEEP SINGH, AGED 41 YEARS, S/O.AMARJITH SINGH, 2ND FLOOR, SUDARSHAN APARTMENTS, BANDA ROAD, VIJAYAWADA-520008, ANDHRAPRADESH. Crl.M.C.No.4594 & 6140 of 2018 3 7 KARAM BIR KAUR, AGED 42 YEARS, D/O.HARBAJAN SINGH, AK3, VISHWESHWARA DUPLEX, NEAR CAFE COFFEE DAY, VIJAYAWADA-52008, ANDHRAPRADESH. BY ADVS. M.M.BABY JOHNY K. JOHN(K/000425/2013) ## **RESPONDENTS/STATE/COMPLAINANT:** 1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031. 2 ESHWIN KAUR, AGED 33 YEARS, W/O.ROOHPREET SINGH, ESH-TASH BUNGLOW, IIND FLOOR, 14TH PARAMBITHARA CROSS ROAD, OP.MAISON DIOR APARTMENTS, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, COCHIN-682036. BY ADV SMT.PUSHPALATHA, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.RAJEE P MATHEWS THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31.05.2023, ALONG WITH Crl.MC.4594/2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Crl.M.C.No.4594 & 6140 of 2018 4 ## K.BABU, J . -------------------------------------Crl.M.C.Nos.4594 & 6140 of 2018 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 31[st] day of May, 2023 ## O R D E R These Crl.M.Cs have been instituted to quash Annexure 2 Final Report in Crime No.1807/2017 of Town South Police Station, Ernakulam District and all further proceedings in C.C No.682/2018 on the file of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court (Economic Offences), Ernakulam. 2. Now, the petitioners and Respondent No.2 have submitted that they have settled the subject matter. 3. The offence alleged against the petitioners is punishable under Section 498-A of IPC. 4. An affidavit sworn to by respondent No.2 has also been placed before the Court. 5. Heard both sides. 6. I have perused the averments in the petition and the affidavit sworn to by respondent No.2. 7. The learned Public Prosecutor, on instructions, submitted that the matter was enquired into through the Investigating Officer, Crl.M.C.No.4594 & 6140 of 2018 5 who has taken the statement of the defacto complainant, and it is reported that the dispute between the parties has been amicably settled. The material placed before the Court shows that the entire dispute between the parties has been amicably settled and the defacto complainant has decided not to proceed further. The settlement between the parties is found to be voluntary and fair. The settlement or the compromise satisfies the conscience of the Court. It is seen that the victim agreed to settle the matter with her free will. 8. 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 State of Madhya Pradesh v. Lakshmi Narayan and Others [(2019) 5 SCC 688] the Apex Court held that the High Court, invoking Section 482 of Cr.P.C, can quash criminal proceedings in relation to non-compoundable offences where the parties have settled the matter between themselves notwithstanding the bar under Section 320 of Cr.P.C., if it is warranted in the given facts and circumstances of the case to ensure ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court. 9. In the instant case, the dispute is purely personal in nature. Crl.M.C.No.4594 & 6140 of 2018 6 There is nothing to show that public interest will be compromised by quashing the proceedings. The offence in question does not fall within the category of serious offences or heinous offences. 10. The offence in the present case does not fall within the category of offences prohibited for granting permission to compromise in terms of the pronouncement of the Apex Court in Gian Singh (supra), Narinder Singh (supra) and Lakshmi Narayan (supra). 11. This Court is of the view that no purpose will be served in proceeding with the matter further. Resultantly, the Crl.M.Cs are allowed. Annexure 2 Final Report in Crime No.1807/2017 of Town South Police Station, Ernakulam District and all further proceedings in C.C No.682/2018 on the file of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court (Economic Offences), Ernakulam stand hereby quashed. Sd/- K.BABU, JUDGE KAS Crl.M.C.No.4594 & 6140 of 2018 7 ## **APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 4594/2018** ## PETITIONER ANNEXURES |ANNEXURE|1:|CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME| |---|---|---| |||NO.1807 OF 2017 OF TOWN SOUTH POLICE| |||STATION, ERNAKULAM.| |ANNEXURE|2:|CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN| |||CRIME NO.1807 OF 2017 OF TOWN SOUTH| |||POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM SUBMITTED| |||BEFORE THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL| |||MAGISTRATE COURT, (ECONOMIC OFFENCES),| |||ERNAKULAM.| |ANNEXURE|3:|A TRUE COPY OF THE M.C.NO.388 OF 2017| |||FILED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT BEFORE| |||THE FAMILY COURT, ERNAKULAM.| |ANNEXURE|4:|A TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY| |||THE PETITIONER TO THE ANNEXURE MC.388/17| |||FILED THE 2ND RESPONDENT, FAMILY COURT,| |||ERNAKULAM.| |ANNEXURE|5:|A TRUE COPY OF THE O.P.NO.95/2018 FILED| |||BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT BEFORE THE FAMILY| |||COURT, ERNAKULAM.| |ANNEXURE|6:|A TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY| |||THE PETITIONER TO THE SAID O.P.95/2018| |||FILED BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT,| |||ERNAKULAM.| Crl.M.C.No.4594 & 6140 of 2018 8 ## **APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 6140/2018** PETITIONER ANNEXURES ANNEXURE A1 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.1807 OF 2017 OF TOWN SOUTH POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM. ANNEXURE A2 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO.1807 OF 2017 OF TOWN SOUTH POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM SUBMITTED BEFORE THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, (ECONOMIC OFFENCES) ERNAKULAM. ANNEXURE A3 A TRUE COPY OF THE M.C.NO.388 OF 2017 FILED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT, ERNAKULAM. ANNEXURE A4 A TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE ANNEXURE MC FILED THE 2ND RESPONDENT. ANNEXURE A5 A TRUE COPY OF THE O.P.NO.95/2018 FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT, ERNAKULAM. ANNEXURE A6 A TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE SAID O.P. ANNEXURE A7 A TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 16.7.2018 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN CRL.M.C.NO.4594/2018.