Nandagopal v. State of Kerala & Another

Crl.M.C.No.3931 of 2021 -: 1 :- **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:19408 ``` ``` IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM ``` ## **`PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C. JAYACHANDRAN ``` ``` FRIDAY, THE 28[TH] DAY OF FEBRUARY 2025 / 9TH PHALGUNA, 1946 ``` ``` CRL.MC NO. 3931 OF 2021 ``` ``` CRIME NO.146/2021 OF CHITTUR POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD ``` ``` SEEKING TO QUASH THE FINAL REPORT IN CC NO.348 OF 2021 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS ,CHITTUR ``` ## **`PETITIONER/ACCUSED:`** ``` NANDAGOPAL, AGED 56 YEARS ``` ``` S/O. KARUPPASWAMY, AYYAVUCHALLA, KUNNAMKATTUPATHY, KOZHIPATHY, CHITTUR, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN-678 555 ``` ## **`BY ADV BINOY VASUDEVAN`** ## **`RESPONDENT/STATE & COMPLAINANT:`** - **`1 THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031`** - **`2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, CHITTUR POLICE STATION, CHITTUR P.O, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN-678 101`** Crl.M.C.No.3931 of 2021 -: 2 :- **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:19408 ``` ``` 3HAMSAVENI, AGED 54 YEARS W/O. NANDAGOPAL, AYYAVUCHALLA, KUNNAMKATTUPATHY, KOZHIPATHY, CHITTUR, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN-678 555 ``` ``` BY ADVS. P.R.VENKATESH G.KEERTHIVAS C.N. PRABHAKARAN, SENIOR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ``` ``` THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28.02.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ``` Crl.M.C.No.3931 of 2021 -: 3 :- **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:19408 ``` ## **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 under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code to quash Crl.M.C.No.3931 of 2021 -: 4 :- **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:19408 ``` 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.”_ **2.** In the facts at hand, petitioner is the sole accused in Crime No.146 of 2021 of Chittur Police Station, Palakkad, Crl.M.C.No.3931 of 2021 -: 5 :- **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:19408 ``` now pending as C.C.No.348/2021 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Chittur. As per the Final Report, the offence alleged is under Section 31 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The petitioner seeks quashment of entire proceedings in the above Calendar 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/3[rd] respondent and the learned Senior Public Prosecutor. Perused the records. **4.** In this case, it is noticed that an affidavit of the defacto complainant endorsing the factum of settlement is not appended with the Crl.M.C. However, 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 was handed over. On perusal of the same, it is clear that the issues between the petitioner and the Crl.M.C.No.3931 of 2021 -: 6 :- **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:19408 ``` defacto complainant have been settled and that they are living separately. Furthermore, the defacto complainant has received her compensation from the petitioner and the instant Crl.M.C was filed with her knowledge; wherefore, she has no objection in quashing the criminal proceedings against the petitioner. In the circumstances, the absence of the affidavit of the 3[rd] respondent need not stand in the way of the relief sought for. Moreover, learned counsel for the 3[rd] respondent would submit that the quashment sought for can be allowed in view of the settlement arrived at. This Court 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 Crl.M.C.No.3931 of 2021 **==> picture [212 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:19408 ``` 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-E FIR, Annexure-F Final Report and all further proceedings in C.C.No.348/2021 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Chittur, are hereby quashed. Sd/- **C.JAYACHANDRAN, JUDGE** ww Crl.M.C.No.3931 of 2021 -: 8 :- **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:19408 ``` ## **`APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 3931/2021`** ## **`PETITIONER ANNEXURES`** ``` ANNEXURE A ``` ``` TRUE COPY OF DOCUMENT NO. 2168/2015 OF S.R.O. KOZHINJAMPARA. ``` ``` ANNEXURE B ``` ``` TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 20.03.2019 IN CRL.M.P NO.2719/2019 IN M.C. NO. 28/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, CHITTUR. ``` ## **`ANNEXURE C`** ``` TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT PREFERRED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT AND HER SON IN W.P.(C) NO. 9296/2021. ``` ## **`ANNEXURE D`** ``` CERTIFIED COPY OF C.M.P NO. 1747/2021 PREFERRED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT UNDER SECTION 31 OF THE DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ACT, 2005 ON 19.04.2021. ``` ``` ANNEXURE ECERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO. 146/2021 OF CHITTUR POLICE STATION. ``` ## **`ANNEXURE F`** ``` CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN C.C. NO.348/2021 DATED 06.08.2021 ON THE FILE OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, CHITTUR. ``` ``` ANNEXURE GTRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT REPORTED IN SHANAVAS VS. STATE OF KERALA (2014 (1) KLT 579. ```