Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(Ker) 171

KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
Sajeev, S/o Sajeev – Appellant
Versus
State Of Kerala – Respondent

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : P.ANOOP (MULAVANA)
For the Respondent: SRI M.P. PRASANTH, A.CHANDRA BABU

Judgement Key Points

Key Points: - The court allowed quashing Annexure-A1 Final Report against petitioners/accused Nos.2 and 4 on settlement grounds (!) (!) . - The dispute between the de facto complainant and accused Nos.2 and 4 was found to be purely personal with no public interest impact (!) . - The offences involved are Sections 120B, 420 r/w 34 IPC; the settlement did not include all accused (!) (!) . - The decision references Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Lovely Salhotra v. State NCT of Delhi to analyze compounding and settlement principles in criminal matters (!) (!) . - The petitioners’ settlement with the de facto complainant led the court to find that quashing against those accused would not adversely affect public harmony (!) (!) . - The High Court relied on the principle that combining personal settlement with selective quashing is permissible under S.482 Cr.P.C. depending on facts (!) .

Question 1?

What is the legal standard to quash FIR or final report against only some accused on the ground of settlement under S.482 Cr.P.C.?

Question 2?

What factors does the Kerala High Court consider when allowing quashing of proceedings against accused Nos.2 and 4 alone in a case involving 120B, 420 r/w 34 IPC?

Question 3?

What precedents are cited to support maintaining or quashing proceedings in a settlement between some accused and the de facto complainant?

ORDER :

This Crl.M.C. has been preferred to quash Annexure-A1 Final Report in C.C.No.2929/2016 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-III, Attingal on the ground of settlement between the parties.

2. Altogether, there are four accused. The petitioners are the accused Nos.2 and 4. The 2nd respondent is the de facto complainant.

3. The offences alleged against the accused are under Sections 120B, 420 r/w 34 of the IPC.

4. The prosecution case, in short, is that the accused made believe the de facto complainant that they were in possession of a memory card containing porn videos of his daughter and induced him to part with Rs.3,00,000/-on 14/7/2012 on the assurance that the said memory card would be handed over to him, but cheated the de facto complainant without handing over the memory card or returning the amount.

5. The respondent No.2 entered appearance through counsel. An affidavit sworn in by him is produced as Annexure-A2.

6. I have heard Sri.P.Anoop, the learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri.Chandra Babu, the learned counsel for respondent No.2 and Sri.M.P.Prasanth, the learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent No.1.

7. The averments in the petition as well as

Click Here to Read the rest of this document