Back
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
Ziyad Rahman A. A, J
PRASD K.G – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
Crl.MC/6270/2022
Quashing - Criminal Proceedings - IPC Sections 294(b), 506(ii), 324; Cr.P.C. Section 482 - The court quashed criminal proceedings based on a settlement between the parties, noting that continuation of prosecution serves no purpose under the circumstances.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner is accused of abusing, threatening, and assaulting the complainant. This case is pending in court, and the petitioner seeks to quash the proceedings based on a settlement agreement with the complainant.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the settlement genuine, confirmed by the complainant's affidavit. Given the private nature of the dispute, it deemed further prosecution unnecessary and applicable to the principles from a prior Supreme Court case.
Issues: Whether the court should quash the criminal proceedings based on a settlement between the complainant and the accused.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings as the dispute was settled between the parties, as established in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab.
Final Decision: The proceedings against the petitioner are quashed.
O R D E R
The petitioner is the sole accused in Crime No.317 of 2018 of Koipuram Police Station, which is now pending as C.C.No.71 of 2022 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Pathanamthitta. Offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 294 (b), 506(ii) and 324 IPC .
2. The prosecution case is that on 22.03.2018 at 8.30 pm the petitioner abused, threatened and assaulted the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant and thereby committed the offence. Annexure-A is the final report submitted by the Police. This Crl.M.C. filed for quashing all further proceedings pursuant to Annexure-A.
3. Heard Sri.Vinod Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Smt.Sreeja V., learned Public Prosecutor for the State and Smt.Parvathi Venugopal, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent.
4. Prayer for quashing the proceedings is sought mainly on the ground that the dispute between the parties has been settled. Annexure-B affidavit sworn by the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant is filed along with this Crl.M.C. to substantiate the settlement. In the said affidavit, the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant had specifically acknowledged the aforesaid settlement and also conveyed the no-objection to quash the proceedings against the petitioners herein. The learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant also confirms the same. The learned Public Prosecutor, upon instructions, submitted that the Station House Officer concerned has verified the veracity of the same and found it to be genuine.
5. The allegations would reveal that the dispute is purely private in nature. In such circumstances, by applying the principles laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court inGian Singh v. State of Punjab and Another [ (2012) 10 SCC 303 ], proceedings can be quashed by invoking the powers of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. This is particularly because, on account of the settlement, no fruitful purpose would be served by allowing the prosecution to continue.
In the result, this Crl.M.C. is allowed, and Annexure-A final report submitted in Crime No.317 of 2018 of Koipuram Police Station and all further proceedings in C.C.No.71 of 2022 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Pathanamthitta, against the petitioner are hereby 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
