Allowed

Devasundari v. Dr.P.Arunachalam & Anr.

Kerala HC15 Feb 2007Crl.MC/306/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the criminal miscellaneous petitions and quashed the FIRs registered against the spouses under Sections 324, 427, and 498A of the IPC, upholding the dismissal of proceedings due to harmonious settlement and an agreement filed by the parties. The court relied on B.S. Joshy.

What did the court decide?

CRlMCs allowed; Crime Nos. 613/06 and 634/05 and all further steps taken in pursuance thereof quashed and set aside.

Devasundari Vs Dr.P.Arunachalam & Anr. — Matrimonial and Divorce | Kerala HC (2007)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT THURSDAY, THE 15TH FEBRUARY 2007 / 26TH MAGHA 1928

¶4

Crl.MC.No. 306 of 2007() ------------------------

¶5

PETITIONER: ACCUSED:

¶6

¶7

DEVASUNDARI, TYPE II/10, TEACHERS QUARTERS, COCHIN UNIVERSITY CAMPUS, KALAMASSERY.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.C.D.JOHNY

¶9

RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT:

¶10

¶11

DR. P.ARUNACHALAM, AGED 43 YEARS, S/O. LATE S.PICHAN, DEVANDRAN STREET, KALAKAD, CHIDAMPARAPURAM VILLAGE, NANGUNERI TALUK, THIRUNELVELI DIST.,PRESENTLY WORKING AS READER, HEAD OF DEPARTMENT,DEPARTMENT OF APPLIED ECONOMICS COCHIN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY.

¶12

THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶13

R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.GIKKU JACOB R1 BY ADV. SMT.MEREENA JOSEPH

¶14

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/02/2007, A/W. CRMC 312 OF 2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

R. BASANT, J.

¶16

CRL.M.C.NOs. 306 & 312 OF 2007

¶17

Dated this the 15^th day of February, 2007

¶18

ORDER

¶19

The parties to these petitions are the spouses. Crl.M.C.No.312/07 is filed by the husband to quash a crime registered at the Kalamassery Police Station as Crime No.634/05 under Sec.498A of the IPC. The de facto complainant is his wife – the 1^st respondent in that Crl.M.C.

¶20

Crl.M.C.No.306/07 is filed by the wife with a prayer that an F.I.R. registered in Crime No.613/06 of the same Police Station under Secs.324 and 427 of the IPC may also be quashed. The spouses submit that the acrimony between them has now been settled harmoniously and they have entered into an agreement copies of which are produced in both cases. They have decided to live separately after settling all their disputes.

¶21

The spouses are represented by their respective counsel. The learned counsel submit that the matter has

¶22

been settled and the parties have entered into an agreement

¶23

CRL.M.C.NOs. 306 & 312 OF 2007 -: 2 :-

¶24

dated 21/12/2006 copies of which have been produced in both petitions. Inasmuch as the spouses have settled their disputes and they have reported such composition to this Court, it would be unnecessary to permit continuation of the steps in investigation in both the crimes which are registered as Crime Nos.634/05 (Crl.M.C.No.312/07) and 613/06 (Crl.M.C.No.306/07). All the offences, except the one punishable under Sec.498A of the IPC, are compoundable. Though the offence under Sec.498A of the IPC is not compoundable, the learned counsel place reliance on the decision in B.S.Joshy v. State of Haryana ( AIR 2003 SC 1386) and contend that in view of the harmonious settlement of the dispute between the spouses, this is an eminently fit case where such extraordinary inherent powers can and ought to be invoked, notwithstanding the fact that the offence under Sec.498A of the IPC is not compoundable.

¶25

I am inclined to agree with the learned counsel for the petitioners. The learned Public Prosecutor does not raise any objection. In view of the harmonious settlement between the spouses, I am satisfied that further proceedings in these two

¶26

CRL.M.C.NOs. 306 & 312 OF 2007 -: 3 :-

¶27

F.I.Rs. can be quashed and they can be set aside.

¶28

In the result:

¶29

(i) These Crl.M.Cs. are allowed.

¶30

(ii) Crime Nos.613/06 and 634/05 both of the Kalamassery

¶31

Police Station and all further steps taken in pursuance of the same are hereby quashed.

¶32

Sd/-

¶33

(R. BASANT, JUDGE)

¶34

Nan/

¶35

//true copy//

¶36

P.S. to Judge

Devasundari v. Dr.P.Arunachalam & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Devasundari v. Dr.P.Arunachalam & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Elsy Vs Shaju John

Nazeer and Another Vs State of Kerala

Manoj & Another Vs State of Kerala

Krishnankutty and Others Vs State of Kerala

Thadiyananikkal Veettil George Vs Forest Range Officer

P.Ramankutty Vs State of Kerala