Quashed

Unus v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC24 Jun 2008Crl.MC/1778/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed the criminal miscellaneous petition and quashed the final charge sheet. Despite offences being non-compoundable, the Court invoked extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. due to a family settlement, resumption of co-habitation, and parties living harmoniously to prevent trauma and protect the marital relationship.

What did the court decide?

The final charge sheet filed in crime No.489/07 is hereby quashed; the criminal miscellaneous case is allowed.

Unus Vs State of Kerala — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Kerala HC (2008)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 24TH JUNE 2008 / 3RD ASHADHA 1930

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 1778 of 2008()

¶6

------------------------[CR.NO.489/07 OF KONNY POLICE STATION]

¶7

PETITIONER:

¶8

¶9

UNUS, ASHIMA MANZIL, MANKULAM MANGARAM, KONNY, PATHANAMTHITTA.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.C.S.MANILAL

¶11

RESPONDENTS:

¶12

¶13

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

¶14

SHEMI, W/O.UNUS, ASHIMA MANZIL, MANKUYLAM MANGARAM, KONNY.

¶15

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.GIKKU JACOB

¶16

SRI.SABU S.KALLARAMOOLA FOR R2

¶17

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

R.BASANT, J.

¶19

Crl.M.C.No.1778 of 2008

¶20

Dated this the 24^th day of June 2008

¶21

O R D E R

¶22

The petitioner faces indictment in a prosecution for offences punishable inter alia under Sections 498A and 326 I.P.C. That proceedings have been initiated on the basis of the grievance of the second respondent herein, his wife. Investigation was conducted by the police and final report was filed. Cognizance has been taken and the prosecution is pending before the learned Magistrate.

¶23

At this stage, the petitioner and the second respondent have come before this court with this petition. They are represented by their counsel. The learned counsel for the petitioner and the second respondent assert that the parties have settled their disputes and the second respondent has compounded the offences allegedly committed by the petitioner against her. Notwithstanding the fact that the offences are noncompoundable, realities of the situation may be taken into account. The parties have settled their disputes. They have resumed co-habitation. They are living a harmonious life with the child born in such matrimony. In these circumstances, the trauma of this prosecution may not be permitted to vex the

¶24

Crl.M.C.No.1778/08

¶25

¶26

spouses and mar their harmonious relationship. An affidavit has been filed by the second respondent duly attested to confirm that there has been such settlement. The learned counsel for the second respondent vouches for the fact that the de facto complainant has settled the disputes with the petitioner and the disputes have been compromised and the offences allegedly committed by the petitioner have been compounded by the second respondent.

¶27

Notice has been given to the learned Public Prosecutor. The learned Public Prosecutor does not oppose the application.

¶28

I am satisfied, in the facts and circumstances of this case that the parties have willingly and voluntarily settled their disputes and the second respondent has compounded the offences allegedly committed by the petitioner. If legally permissible and possible, I am satisfied that the composition can be accepted and premature termination of the proceedings initiated against the petitioner can be brought about. But the offences alleged include offences which are not compoundable. The learned counsel in these circumstances place reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in B.S.Joshi vs. State of

¶29

Crl.M.C.No.1778/08

¶30

¶31

Haryana [AIR 2003 SC 1386] and Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab [2008 AIR SCW 2287] . Those decisions are authority for the proposition that at times justice beyond the law may have to be attempted by this court invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The mere fact that the offences are not compoundable cannot fetter or tie the hands of the court in its quest to do justice in the peculiar facts and circumstances of a given case. I am satisfied, in the facts and circumstances of this case where it is proved satisfactorily that the spouses have resumed co-habitation and are residing with their child such powers can be invoked as enabled by the precedents referred above and premature termination of the proceedings can be brought about.

¶32

In the result,

¶33

a) This Crl.M.C is allowed.

¶34

b) The final charge sheet filed in crime No.489/07 of Konni Police station against the petitioner herein on the basis of the grievances raised by the second respondent herein is hereby quashed.

¶35

(R.BASANT, JUDGE)

jsr

Crl.M.C.No.1778/08 4

Crl.M.C.No.1778/08 5

R.BASANT, J.

CRL.M.CNo.

ORDER

21ST DAY OF MAY2007

Unus v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Unus v. State of Kerala

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

Abdul Latheef Vs the State of Kerala

Pankajakshan Vs Sub Inspector of Police & Another

Sebastian K.M Vs State of Kerala

K.K. Kuriakose Vs State of Kerala

K.P. Muhammadali Vs Sub Inspector of Police

Simon Abraham Vs v.R.Vikraman Pillai