High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeCrl.M.C. allowed; Annexure-A3 Final Report quas...

NIDHIN RAJ VETTIKKADAN ANCY THANKACHAN v. STATE OF KERALA AND AISWARYA V.S (CRL.MC 7457 of 2022)

Case / Petition Number:CRL.MC NO. 7457 OF 2022

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • Dr. Kauser Edappagath
Judgment Date
2022-11-02
Court Decision / Holding
The Crl.M.C. is allowed. Annexure-A3 Final Report in Crime No.542/2022 of Infopark Police Station, now pending as C.C. No.624/2022 before the JFCM Kakkanad, stands quashed.
Final Disposition
Crl.M.C. allowed; Annexure-A3 Final Report quashed; criminal proceedings against petitioners discontinued.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • Soori M.B
  • M.K Babu
  • C.C Shamala
  • Sidharth M B
  • Diya S Lakshmi

Respondents

  • State of Kerala represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala
  • AISWARYA V.S

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • C.S. Ajith Prakash
  • • T.K. Devarajan

Counsels for Respondents

  • • SMT.T.V.Neema
  • • Sr. Public Prosecutor
  • • Martin Jose P
  • • P. Prijith
  • • Thomas P. Kuruvilla
  • • R. Githesh
  • • Ajay Ben Jose
  • • Manjunath Menon
  • • Sachin Jacob Ambat
  • • Anna Linda V.J
  • • Harikrishnan S.
  • • S. Sreekumar

Case Synopsis & Summary

This High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam, dealt with CRL.MC No.7457 of 2022 filed by five accused persons (Soori M.B, M.K Babu, C.C Shamala, Sidharth M B, and Diya S Lakshmi) seeking to quash the final report in Infopark P.S. Crime No.542 of 2022, which is pending as C.C. No.624 of 2022 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kakkanad. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under IPC sections 498A, 354A(1)(i) and 509 read with 34. During admission, counsel for both sides—petitioners and the de facto complainant—stressed the possibility of settlement because both parties are lawyers. The matter was mediated in Court, resulting in a written compromise where the de facto complainant agreed not to proceed with the criminal proceedings. Relying on the Supreme Court precedents Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, and State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan, the Court noted that a High Court can quash proceedings under S.482 Cr.P.C in relation to non-compoundable offences when parties settle, to serve ends of justice and prevent abuse of process, even if Section 320 Cr.P.C bars compounding. The dispute being purely private and not affecting public interest, the Court held that no purpose is served by continuing the proceedings and quashed the final report. The Crl.M.C. was therefore allowed, and Annexure-A3 Final Report stood quashed.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 498A IPCSection 354A(1)(i) IPCSection 509 r/w 34 IPCSection 482 Cr.P.C.Section 320 Cr.P.C.

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

  • Ends of justice
  • Abuse of the process of any court
  • Compounding of offences
  • Non-compoundable offences, and the possibility of quashing under S.482 Cr.P.C. in appropriate circumstances

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners’ counsel submitted that since the parties, being lawyers, could be reconciled through mediation by the Court, it would be appropriate to settle the disputes. The compromise reflects a mutual understanding, with the de facto complainant deciding not to pursue the criminal proceedings further, and the entire matter being amicably settled. They relied on the principle that quashing under S.482 Cr.P.C can be invoked to avoid abuse of process where ends of justice demand it, especially in light of settled personal disputes.

Contentions of Respondents

The de facto complainant and the State counsel did not oppose the mediation; the parties mutually agreed to the settlement, with the de facto complainant opting not to continue the case. The respondents supported resolution of the dispute in the larger interest of justice and preserving privacy, subject to the Court’s satisfaction that the offences do not fall within the prohibition on compounding.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab2012 (4) KLT 108 (SC)PositiveCited to support the proposition that High Courts may quash non-compoundable offences when there is a settlement and ends of justice require it, despite the non-compoundability of certain offences.
Narinder Singh and Others v. State of Punjab and Others(2014) 6 SCC 466PositiveUsed to reinforce the principle that quashing may be permissible on settlement under the right circumstances, aligning with Gian Singh.
State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan and Others(2019) 5 SCC 688PositiveEmphasizes that Court may quash non-compoundable offences on settlement to serve ends of justice and prevent abuse of process.

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 NIDHIN RAJ VETTIKKADAN ANCY THANKACHAN v. STATE OF KERALA AND AISWARYA V.S (CRL.MC 7457 of 2022) 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** ||**PRESENT**| |---|---| ||**THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH**| |**WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022 / 11TH KARTHIKA, 1944**|| ||**CRL.MC NO. 7457 OF 2022**| |**CRIME**|**NO.542/2022 OF INFOPARK POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM**| ||**CC 624/2022 OF JMFC, KAKKANAD (TEMPORARY)**| |**PETITIONERS/ACCUSED:**|| |**1**|**SOORI.M.B**| ||**AGED 33 YEARS**| ||**S/O M K BABU**| ||**MANGAT HOUSE, NJARAKAD ROAD,**| ||**PERUVARAM WEST, NORTH PARAVOOR, PIN - 683513**| |**2**|**M.K BABU**| ||**AGED 65 YEARS**| ||**S/O LATE KUNJIRAMAN**| ||**MANGAT HOUSE, NJARAKAD ROAD,**| ||**PERUVARAM WEST, NORTH PARAVOOR, PIN - 683513**| |**3**|**C.C SHAMALA**| ||**AGED 60 YEARS**| ||**W/O M.K BABU**| ||**MANGAT HOUSE, NJARAKAD ROAD,**| ||**PERUVARAM WEST, NORTH PARAVOOR, PIN - 682513**| |**4**|**SIDHARTH M B**| ||**AGED 30 YEARS**| ||**S/O M K BABU**| ||**FLAT F 01 ELEGANT HOMES, THANNERPANDAL**| ||**KATAMERI, VATAKARA, PIN - 673542**| |**5**|**DIYA S LAKSHMI**| ||**AGED 28 YEARS**| ||**W/O SIDHARTH M B**| ||**FLAT F 01 ELEGANT HOMES, THANNERPANDAL**| ||**KATAMERI, VATAKARA, PIN - 673542**| ||**BY ADVS.**| ||**C.S.AJITH PRAKASH**| ||**T.K.DEVARAJAN**| **CRL.MC NO. 7457 OF 2022** 2 ## **NIDHIN RAJ VETTIKKADAN ANCY THANKACHAN** ## **RESPONDENTS/STATE AND DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:** **1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031 2 AISWARYA V.S AGED 27 YEARS D/O VIJAYAMOHANAN P.K, AISWARYA HOUSE, NEDUMKULANGARA, MALA, ATHANI, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682030** **BY ADVS. SMT.T.V.NEEMA, SR.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MARTIN JOSE P P.PRIJITH(K/233/2005) THOMAS P.KURUVILLA(K/420-B/2005) R.GITHESH(K/630/2002) AJAY BEN JOSE(K/729/2012) MANJUNATH MENON(K/000474/2015) SACHIN JACOB AMBAT(K/734/2016) ANNA LINDA V.J(K/1201/2020) HARIKRISHNAN S.(K/497/2019) S.SREEKUMAR (SR.)(S-571)** ## **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON** **02.11.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **CRL.MC NO. 7457 OF 2022** 3 ## **O R D E R** This Crl.M.C. has been preferred to quash Annexure-A3 Final Report in Crime No.542 of 2022 of Infopark Police station, now pending as C.C.No.624 of 2022 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kakkanad. 2. The petitioners are the accused. The 2[nd] respondent is the de facto complainant. 3. The offences alleged against the petitioners are punishable under Sections 498A, 354A(1)(i) and 509 r/w 34 of IPC. 4. The 2[nd] respondent entered appearance through counsel. 5. When this Crl.M.C came up for admission, Shri.C.S.Ajith Prakash, the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Sri.S.Sreekumar, the learned Senior counsel for the 2[nd] respondent, submitted that both parties being lawyers, if the matter is mediated by this Court, there is every possibility for settlement. Hence, the matter in issue between the parties were mediated by **CRL.MC NO. 7457 OF 2022** 4 this Court. The petitioner, the 2[nd] respondent as well as their parents, Shri.C.S.Ajith Prakash, the learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri.S.Sreekumar, the learned Senior counsel for the 2[nd] respondent and Smt.T.V.Neema, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor were present at the mediation. At the mediation, the entire disputes between the parties were settled and compromise petition has been reduced into writing and it has been filed before this Court. The compromise petition would show that the entire disputes between the parties has been amicably settled and the 2[nd] respondent has decided not to proceed with the crime further. The averments in the compromise petition 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 criminal proceedings further. 6. 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 **CRL.MC NO. 7457 OF 2022** 5 _**State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan and Others**_ [(2019) 5 SCC 688] has held that the High Court by 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 the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of process of any Court. 7. 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-A3. 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 **CRL.MC NO. 7457 OF 2022** 6 any further. Accordingly, the Crl.M.C. is allowed. Annexure-A3 Final Report in Crime No.542 of 2022 of Infopark Police station, now pending as C.C.No.624 of 2022 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kakkanad hereby stands quashed. Sd/- **DR.KAUSER EDAPPAGATH, JUDGE** AS **CRL.MC NO. 7457 OF 2022** 7 ## **APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 7457/2022** ## **PETITIONERS' ANNEXURES** **ANNEXURE A1 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.542/2022 DATED 13-08-2022 OF INFOPARK POLICE STATION, KAKKANAD** **ANNEXURE A2 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FI STATEMENT OF THE DEFACTO COMPLAINANT DATED 13-08-2022** **ANNEXURE A3 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT ALONG WITH THE STATEMENT OF THE WITNESSES IN CRIME NO. 542/2022 DATED 16/9/2022 OF INFOPARK POLICE STATION** - **ANNEXURE A4 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE STATEMENT DATED 29/8/2022 OF THE DEFACTO COMPLAINANT RECORDED UNDER SECTION 164 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE, 1973** **ANNEXURE A5 TRUE COPY OF THE PATIENT REGISTRATION CARD DATED 26-04-2021 OF THE DEFACTO COMPLAINANT ISSUED FROM THE MEDIAL TRUST HOSPITAL, ERNAKULAM** - **ANNEXURE A6 THE TRUE COPY OF THE PATIENT REGISTRATION CARD OF THE 2ND PETITIONER ISSUED FROM AMRITA INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES** - **ANNEXURE A7 THE TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED TO THE 2ND PETITIONER FROM MEDICAL TRUST HOSPITAL DATED 1-10-2020** - **ANNEXURE A8 THE TRUE COPY OF THE MEDICINE PRESCRIPTION DATED 07-10-2022 OF THE 2ND PETITIONER** **ANNEXURE A9 THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER OF THE 4TH PETITIONER DATED 11-12-2017** **CRL.MC NO. 7457 OF 2022** 8 ## **ISSUED FROM THE STATE BANK OF INDIA** ## **ANNEXURE A10** **THE TRUE COPY OF THE FLIGHT TICKET OF THE 4TH PETITIONER DATED 26-01-2021 FROM HUBLI TO KANNUR** **ANNEXURE A 11 THE TRUE COPY OF THE FLIGHT TICKET OF THE 4TH PETITIONER DATED 02-02-2021 FROM KANNUR TO HUBLI** **ANNEXURE A 12 THE TRUE COPY OF THE RELIEVING LETTER DTED 10-07-2021 OF THE 4TH PETITIONER** **ANNEXURE A 13 THE TRUE COPY OF THE LEASE AGREEMENT DATED 1-08-2022 OF THE LEASED RESIDENCE WHEREIN THE 4TH AND 5TH PETITIONER ARE RESIDING AT KOZHIKODE**