IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH MONDAY, THE 4^TH DAY OF APRIL 2022 / 14TH CHAITHRA, 1944 CRL.MC NO. 5801 OF 2018 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC 1472/2017 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS - IX, ERNAKULAM (TEMPORARY)

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

PRAYAG PRAVEEN, AGED 32 YEARS, S/O. PRAVEEN, STHUTHI HOUSE, CHALA KUNNU, CHALA, KANNOOR.

BY ADVS.

S. NIDHEESH V.S. SHIRAZ BAVA RESPONDENTS/STATE & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:

1 THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031.

2 PRIYANKA D/O. JAYANTHI, FLAT NO.S-2, TOLIP PINK APPARTMENT, CROSS ROAD, CHATHANGADU, PALARIVATTOM, EDAPPALLY SOUTH VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM-682 025.

BY ADV SRI.PREMCHAND R.NAIR SMT T V NEEMA -SR PP SRI.GEORGE BRISTON -R2 THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04.04.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

O R D E R

Dated this the 04^th day of April, 2022 This Crl.M.C. has been preferred to quash Annexure-B Final Report in C.C.No.1472/2017 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-IX, Ernakulam on the ground of settlement between the parties.

2. The petitioner is the accused. The 2^nd respondent is the de facto complainant.

3. The offence alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 341 and 323 of the IPC.

4. The 2^nd respondent entered appearance through counsel. An affidavit sworn in by her is also produced.

5. I have heard Sri.Nidheesh.S, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri.George Briston, the learned counsel for the 2^nd respondent and Smt.T.V. Neema, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor.

6. The averments in the petition as well as the affidavit sworn in by the 2^nd respondent 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 crime further. The learned Prosecutor, on instruction, submits that the matter was enquired into through the investigating officer and a statement of the de facto complainant was also recorded wherein she reported that the matter was amicably settled.

7. 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 State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan and Others [(2019) 5 SCC 688] has held that the High Court 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 ends of justice or to prevent abuse of process of any Court.

8. 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-B. 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 further. Accordingly, the Crl.M.C. is allowed. Annexure-B Final Report in C.C.No.1472/2017 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-IX, Ernakulam stands hereby quashed.

Sd/-

DR.KAUSER EDAPPAGATH, JUDGE ded/04.04.2022 APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 5801/2018 PETITIONER ANNEXURES ANNEXURE A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME

1607/2017 OF PALARIVATTOM POLICE STATION.

ANNEXURE B CERTIFIED COPY OF THE CHARGE SHEET IN C.C. 1472/17 ON THE FILE OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT IX, ERNAKULAM.

ANNEXURE C TRUE COPY OF THE ONLINE TICKET CONFIRMATION DETAILS OF THE PETITIONER.

ANNEXURE D TRUE COPY OF THE POSTAL CARD DATED

31/03/2018.

RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS : NIL.

//TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE