0

There is no purpose to continue the proceedings if the matter between the petitioner and respondent has been settled already: High Court of Kerala

If there has been an amicable settlement between petitioner and respondent and there statement has been taken then no purpose will be served by continuing the proceedings and same was upheld by High Court of Kerala through the learned bench led by HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED NIAS C.P. in the case of SARATH.S v. STATE OF KERALA (CRL.MC NO. 1156 OF 2022) on 11th April, 2022.

Brief facts of the case are that on 04/10/2021 at around 9.20 a.m., the petitioner illegally entered into the house of the de facto complainant with the intention to steal rubber sheets which were kept in the stair landing portion of the de facto complainant. The petitioner with the other accused had stolen 30 rubber sheets which caused loss worth 3000/- Rupees. Thus, the accused has committed the alleged offences.

Learned petitioner’s counsel submitted that petitioner and 2nd respondent have arrived at an amicable settlement and Annexure A2 is the affidavit filed. The affidavit, inter alia state that all disputes are settled and that the pendency of criminal proceeding would cause hardship to all the parties.

From the submission across the Bar and perusing the criminal M.C. and the affidavit referred, the Court was satisfied that there has been an amicable settlement and that there is no vitiating circumstances in the respondent filing the affidavit. No purpose will be served by continuing the proceedings in the above circumstances. And the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the statement of the de facto complainant has also be taken to verify the genuineness of the settlement.

In view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another and considering the facts and circumstances of the case and in exercise of power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Court quashed the FIR and all further proceedings in Crime against this petitioner and allowed the Crl.MC.

Click here to read the Judgment

Judgment reviewed by – Amit Singh

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Open chat