Back
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J
HARIDAS C.N – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
Crl.MC/1602/2021
Settlement - Criminal Proceedings - IPC Sections List - The court acknowledged the genuine settlement between the accused and the complainant, applying principles from Gian Singh and Parbathbhai cases, determining no public interest in continuing proceedings for non-heinous offences.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners are accused in a criminal case involving multiple sections of the IPC. A settlement was reached between them and the complainant, with affidavits confirming this settlement.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the settlement to be genuine and noted that the alleged offences are not severe nor do they invoke public interest, supporting the decision to quash further proceedings.
Issues: Whether the criminal proceedings should continue in light of the settlement between the accused and the complainant.
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that if the parties have settled and the nature of the offences is not grave, the proceedings can be quashed, as supported by precedents.
Final Decision: All proceedings against the petitioners are quashed.
ORDER
Petitioners are the accused in C.C.No.491 of 2017 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-I, Kasaragod which arose out of Crime No.515 of 2016 of Bedakam Police Station. The offeces alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 143 , 147, 148, 341, 323, 324 and 294(b) r/w. Section 149 IPC .
2. The learned counsel for the petitioners Sri.Kodoth Sridharan submits that the matter has been settled between the petitioners and the de facto complainant, who has in fact filed an affidavit, which is produced as Annexure III endorsing the fact that the matter has been settled. Adv.Ajeesh S.Brite appearing for the 2nd respondent also affirms the veracity of the settlement.
3. The learned Public Prosecutor, on instructions submit that the matter has been enquired into and the settlement has been found to be genuine.
4. The offences alleged against the petitioners are not heinous crimes and there is no public interest involved in continuing with the proceedings especially in the light of the settlement recorded between the de facto complainant and the petitioners. I feel that this is a fit case where the proceedings need not be continued further in the light of the principles laid down inGian Singh v. State of Punjab and Another [ (2012) 10 SCC 303 ] and Parbathbhai Aahir Alias Parbathbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and Others v. State of Gujarat and Another [ (2017) 9 SCC 641 ].
Accordingly the Crl.M.C. is allowed and all further proceedings as against the petitioners in C.C.No.491 of 2017 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-I, Kasaragod shall stand quashed.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
