Meera v. State of Kerala and Others

Crl.M.C.No.6746 of 2024 -: 1 :- **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:25146 ``` ``` IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM ``` ## **`PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C. JAYACHANDRAN ``` ``` MONDAY, THE 17[TH] DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 26TH PHALGUNA, 1946 ``` ``` CRL.MC NO. 6746 OF 2024 ``` ``` CRIME NO.3095/2021 OF NEDUMANGAD POLICE STATION, ``` ## **`THIRUVANANTHAPURAM`** ``` AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN SC NO.1446 OF 2022 OF SPECIAL COURT-TRIAL OF OFFENCE UNDER SC/ST(POA) ACT, 1989, NEDUMANGAD ``` ## **`PETITIONER/ACCUSED:`** ``` MEERA AGED 47 YEARS D/O GIRIJA KUMARI, PLOT NO. 15, HOUSING BOARD COLONY, NETTA, NEDUMANGADU VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 695541 ``` ``` BY ADVS. R.HARIKRISHNAN (H-308) G.SUDHEER ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS/STATE & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:`** ``` 1STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN – 682031. ``` Crl.M.C.No.6746 of 2024 -: 2 :- **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:25146 ``` ``` 2DHANYA K. GOPAL AGED 40 YEARS D/O SUSEELA, PLOT NO. 108, RADHA NIVAS, HOUSING BOARD COLONY, NETTA, NEDUMANGADU VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 695541 ``` ``` *ADDL.R3SABU KUMAR, AGED 42 YEARS ``` ``` S/O VIJAYAN, RADHA NIVAS PLOT NO. 108, HOUSING BOARD COLONY, NETTA, NEDUMANGADU WARD, NEDUMANGADU VILLAGE, NOW RESIDING AT PLOT NO. 15, HOUSING BOARD NETTA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT-695 541. ``` ``` (IMPLEADED AS ADDL.R3 AS PER ORDER DATED 14/11/24 IN CRL.MA 1/24 IN CRL.MC 6746/24) ``` ``` BY ADVS.N.P.ASHA ``` ``` E.C. BINEESH, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ``` ``` THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ``` Crl.M.C.No.6746 of 2024 -: 3 :- **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:25146 ``` ## **O R D E R** A five Judges Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in _**Kulwinder Singh and Others v. State of Punjab and Another**_ [(2007) 4 CTC 769], framed broad guidelines as regards quashment of the criminal proceedings under Section 482 of the Code in respect of offences which are not compoundable in terms of Section 320 of the Code. One among the guidelines was that the offences against human body, other than murder and culpable homicide, may be permitted to be compounded, when the Court is in a position to record a finding that the settlement between the parties is voluntary and fair. These guidelines were quoted with approval by a three Judges Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in _**Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another**_ [(2012) 10 SCC 303]. Similarly in _**Narinder Singh and Others v. State of Punjab**_ [(2014) 6 SCC 466], the Hon'ble Supreme Court has gone to the extent of sanctioning invocation of the inherent power Crl.M.C.No.6746 of 2024 -: 4 :- **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:25146 ``` under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code to quash the F.I.R in a crime alleging offence under Section 307, which is a henious and serious offence. A practical approach is seen adopted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in _**Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab**_ [(2008) 4 SCC 582] as regards quashment in respect of offences like 379, 406, 409, 418, etc., the relevant findings of which are extracted here below: _“6. We need to emphasise that it is perhaps advisable that in disputes where the question involved is of a purely personal nature, the court should ordinarily accept the terms of the compromise even in criminal proceedings as keeping the matter alive with no possibility of a result in favour of the prosecution is a luxury which the courts, grossly overburdened as they are, cannot afford and that the time so saved can be utilised in deciding more effective and meaningful litigation. This is a common sense approach to the matter based on ground of realities and bereft of the technicalities of the law.”_ Crl.M.C.No.6746 of 2024 -: 5 :- **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:25146 ``` **2.** In the facts at hand, petitioner is the sole accused in Crime No.3095 of 2021 of Nedumangad Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram, now pending as S.C.No.1446/2022 before the Special Court for SC/ST (PoA) Cases, Nedumangad. As per the Final Report, the offences alleged are under Sections 294(b) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)(r) and (s) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The petitioner seeks quashment of entire proceedings in the above Sessions Case, on the strength of the settlement arrived at by and between the parties. **3.** Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner; learned counsel for the defacto complainant/2[nd] respondent and the learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the records. **4.** When this Crl.M.C was moved, this Court directed to record the statement of the defacto complainant. The said direction was complied and the statement recorded over the phone, was handed over. On perusal of the same, it is clear Crl.M.C.No.6746 of 2024 -: 6 :- **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:25146 ``` that the issues between the petitioner, the defacto complainant/2[nd] respondent and 3[rd] respondent are settled and that they are disinterested to pursue the prosecution case, any further. The defacto complainant would further state that she has no objection in quashing the criminal proceedings against the petitioner. That apart, it is noticed that, along with this Crl.M.C, affidavits have been sworn to by the defacto complainant/2[nd] respondent and the 3[rd] respondent (CW2/husband of the defacto complainant) as Annexures-A3 and A4 respectively, wherein they would unequivocally state that the disputes have been amicably settled and that they have no objection in quashing the criminal proceedings against the petitioner. They would also swear that they do not want to prosecute the case against the petitioner, any more and that the affidavits are sworn to on their own volition. Moreover, learned counsel for the 2[nd] respondent would submit that the quashment sought for can be allowed in view of the settlement arrived at. This Court Crl.M.C.No.6746 of 2024 **==> picture [212 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:25146 ``` is therefore convinced that the settlement arrived at is genuine and bonafide. **5.** In the light of the above referred facts, this Court is of the opinion that the necessary parameters, as culled out in _**Narinder Singh**_ (supra), _**Madan Mohan Abbot**_ (supra) and _**Gian Singh**_ (supra), are fully satisfied. This court is convinced that further proceedings against the petitioner will be a futile exercise, inasmuch as the disputes have already been settled. There is little possibility of any conviction in the crime. _Dehors_ the settlement arrived at by and between the parties, if they are compelled to face the criminal proceedings, the same, in the estimation of this Court, will amount to abuse of process of Court. The quashment sought for would secure the ends of justice. **6.** In the circumstances, this Crl.M.C. is allowed. Annexure-A2 Final Report and all further proceedings in Crl.M.C.No.6746 of 2024 -: 8 :- **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:25146 ``` S.C.No.1446/2022 of the Special Court for SC/ST (PoA) Cases, Nedumangad, are hereby quashed. Sd/- **C.JAYACHANDRAN, JUDGE** ww Crl.M.C.No.6746 of 2024 -: 9 :- **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:25146 ``` ## **`APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 6746/2024`** ## **`PETITIONER ANNEXURES`** ## **`ANNEXURE A1`** ``` COPY OF THE FIR AND FIS IN CRIME NO. 3095/2021 OF NEDUMANGADU POLICE STATION DATED 23.10.2021 ``` ## **`ANNEXURE A2`** ``` COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN S.C. NO. 1446/2022 : CRIME NO.3095/2021 OF NEDUMANGADU POLICE STATION PENDING BEFORE THE SPECIAL COURT FOR SC/ST (POA) CASES, NEDUMANGADU. ``` ## **`ANNEXURE A3`** ``` THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN IN BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT BEFORE NOTARY PUBLIC DATED 31.7.2024. ``` ## **`ANNEXURE A4`** ``` AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 15TH OCTOBER 2024 EXPRESSING HIS CONSENT TO QUASH ANNEXURE A2 CASE ```