High Court of Kerala quashed criminal proceedings under Section 498A IPC filed against a husband. The court held that upon settlement, marriage dissolution and re-marriage, proceeding was not in interest of justice.
Annexure-A1 FIR, Annexure-A2 charge sheet and C.C.400/2007 quashed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR THURSDAY, THE 11TH JUNE 2009 / 21ST JYAISHTA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 1833 of 2009() ------------------------CC.400/2007 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, CHANGANACHERRY ....................
PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED:
-----------------------------------------
T.S.BABURAJ, AVANISSERY HOUSE, NEAR COMPANY PADI, OLLOOR P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT.
BY ADV. MR.R.PARTHASARATHY
RESPONDENT(S): STATE & COMPLAINANT:
------------------------------------------------------------------
1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
2. A.P.ANITHA, AMBILY NIVAS, NEAR N.S.S. U.P.SCHOOL, PUZHAVATHU BHAGOM, CHANGANASSERY, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.
R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. AMJAD ALI R2 BY ADV. MR.V.MADHUSUDHANAN
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Kss
ORDER ON CRL.M.A.NO.3041/2009 IN CRMC.NO.1833/2009
DISMISSED
11/06/2009 SD/- M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE
/TRUE COPY/
P.A.TO JUDGE
Kss
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J.
CRL.M.C.NO. 1833 OF 2009
Dated 11th June 2009
O R D E R
Petitioner is the accused and second respondent is his wife. Petitioner is the accused and second respondent the defacto complainant in C.C.400/2007 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Changanachery. Based on the complaint of second respondent, Annexure-A1 FIR was registered. After investigation Annexure-A2 final report was submitted before the Magistrate alleging that petitioner committed an offence under Section 498A of Indian Penal Code. Learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence on Annexure-A2 final report. This petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the proceedings contending that there was a subsequent settlement of all the disputes between petitioner and second respondent and consequent to the settlement, evidenced by Annexure-A3 agreement both petitioner and second respondent dissolved their marriage and both of them subsequently re-married and second respondent has no
CRMC 1833/09
2
intention to proceed with the case further and in such circumstances, the case is to be quashed. Annexure-A3 agreement produced along with the petition establish that all disputes between petitioner and second respondent
were resolved and it was decided to withdraw C.C.400/2007 pending before the Magistrate though legally withdrawal of the case is not possible. Annexure-A4 affidavit is also filed by second respondent re-iterating the case of the settlement and stated that she has no subsisting dispute with the petitioner and she has no objection to quash the proceedings. Second respondent appeared through a counsel.
CRMC 1833/09
3
further.
B.S.Joshi and others v. State of Haryana and another
(2003(4) SCC 675 ) technicalities shall not stand in the way and though the offence cannot be compounded under Section 320 of Code of Criminal Procedure, exercising of the powers under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, in the interest of justice the case could be quashed.
Petition is allowed. Annexure-A1 FIR and Annexure-A2 charge sheet and C.C.400/2007 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Changanacherry are quashed.
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE.
uj.
3 issues framed by the court
Whether criminal proceedings under Section 498A IPC can be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. upon complete settlement, dissolution of marriage, and re-marriage between parties.
Whether technicalities should stand in the way of quashing proceedings where there is no chance of successful prosecution.
Whether the court has power to quash proceedings filed upon final report despite non-compoundability of the offence.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
B.S.Joshi and others v. State of Haryana and anotherExplained¶35
(2003(4) SCC 675) · Who else cites this
3 provisions across 2 enactments
T.S.Baburaj
The State of Kerala
A.P.Anitha
M.Sasidharan Nambiar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
M.Sasidharan Nambiar
Parties & counsel
