In Gian Singh v. State of Punjab & Anr.

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031 AMAL SURENDRAN AGED 32 YEARS S/O SURENDRAN, PYNGALIL HOUSE, ARAKKUNNAM P.O,MUVATTUPUZHA, ERANAKUILAM, PIN - 682313 R1 BY ADV.ASHI M.C (PP) R2 BY ADV S.SANDEEP (S-3458) THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON

27.05.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: CRL.MC NO. 3581 OF 2024 2 BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.M.C. No. 3581 OF 2024 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 27th day of May, 2024 ORDER Petitioners have invoked the jurisdiction under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to quash all proceedings against them.

Petitioners are the accused in C.C. No. 419/2022 on the files of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court (E&O), Ernakulam, arising out of Crime No. 751 of 2022 of Ernakulam Town South Police Station, registered for the offences under Sections 323, 294(b) & 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Second respondent is the defacto complainant.

According to the prosecution, the accused had on 25-06-2022 assaulted the defacto complainant after abusing him and thereby committed the offences alleged.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondent, apart from the learned Public Prosecutor.

The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the matter has been settled and hence the CRL.MC NO. 3581 OF 2024 3 proceedings against the petitioners ought to be quashed. It was also submitted that, considering the nature of offences alleged, no purpose would be served by continuing the proceedings.

In Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Another [(2012) 10 SCC 303], the Apex Court has held that in appropriate cases, the High Court can take note of the amicable resolution of disputes between the victim and the wrongdoer to put an end to the criminal proceedings. This view was reiterated in Narinder Singh and Others v. State of Punjab and Another [(2014) 6 SCC 466] and Yogendra Yadav and Others v. State of Jharkhand and Another [(2014) 9 SCC 653].

I have perused Annexure A2 affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent. The learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that upon verification, it is understood that the affidavit is genuine, and the defacto complainant stands by the contents thereof. I am satisfied that the matter has been settled and no public interest is involved in this case. There is no impediment for granting the prayer for quashing. The continuance of the proceedings will only be an exercise in futility. CRL.MC NO. 3581 OF 2024 4

Accordingly, all proceedings against the petitioners in C.C. No. 419/2022 on the files of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court (EO), Ernakulam are quashed. This Crl.M.C is allowed as above. Sd/- JUDGE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS AJM CRL.MC NO. 3581 OF 2024 5 APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 3581/2024 PETITIONER’S ANNEXURES: Annexure A1 CERTIFIED COPY OF FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO. 751/2022 OF ERNAKULAM TOWN SOUTH POLICE STATION DATED 04.07.2022 Annexure A2 AFFIDAVIT OF RESPONDENT NO 2 DATED 01.04.2024 RESPONDENTS ANNEXURES: NIL //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE