Allowed

Georgekutty Joseph v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC19 Oct 2009Crl.MC/2947/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner accused of failing to protect a minor child under the Juvenile Justice Act sought to quash criminal proceedings via Section 482 CrPC following a family court mediation on custody. The High Court, noting an amicable settlement and a final report confirming no grievance, allowed the petition and quashed the case, finding continuation unjustified.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Misc. Case No. 550/2007 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Changanassery was quashed.

Georgekutty Joseph Vs the State of Kerala — Quashing and FIR | Kerala HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR

¶4

MONDAY, THE 19TH OCTOBER 2009 / 27TH ASWINA 1931

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 2947 of 2009()

¶6

------------------------CC.550/2007 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, CHANGANACHERRY ....................

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED: ---------------

¶8

GEORGEKUTTY JOSEPH THUPPALANNJIYIL HOUSE,KARIMPANI P.O.,MATTAKARA AKALAKUKNNAM VILLAGE,KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.JACOB E SIMON

¶10

RESPONDENT(S)/STATE/DE FACTO COMPLAINANT:

¶11

¶12

THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE HOSDURG POLICE STATION REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM.

¶13

JISHA VARGHESE, D/O.VARGHESE KOOVAKADU HOUSE, UMBIDY P.O,THOTTAKADU, MADAPALLY VILLAGE,KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.

¶14

R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.AMJAD ALI

¶15

R2 BY SRI.MOHAN JACOB GEORGE

¶16

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J.

¶18

CRL.M.C.NO. 2947 OF 2009

¶19

Dated 19^th October 2009

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

Petitioner is the accused in C.C.550/2007 on

¶22

the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Changanassery taken cognizance, on Annexure-E final report submitted by the Sub Inspector of police, Karukachal for the offence under Section 23 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000. Second respondent was the wife of the petitioner. Their marriage was admittedly dissolved subsequent to disposal of Mat.Appeal No.879/2008 by this court. Prosecution case is that their 4½ years old female child by name Lyn Elizabeth was taken by the petitioner and for about four months the child was kept in room No.556 of Ward No.III of Karukachal panchayat, without taking proper care and protection and he thereby committed the offence. This petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure contending that as the entire disputes between the petitioner and second respondent were settled amicably

¶23

CRMC 2947/09

¶24

¶25

and so, it is not in the interest of justice to continue the prosecution. For getting custody of the minor child, second respondent had filed O.P.941/2008 before Family court, Kottayam. Aggrieved by the order granting custody of the child to the mother on conditions, petitioner filed Mat.Appeal No.879/2008. While appeal was pending, the disputes were settled amicably. accepting the report of the settlement, Annexure-B judgment was passed handing over the custody of the child to the father with a direction that he shall hand over the child to the court on 27/7/2009 and on 27/7/2009 the child shall be handed over to the custody of the mother and she is at liberty to take the child to the Embassy and make all necessary arrangement for getting visa and other travel documents and thereafter, child is to be produced before the court on 17/8/2009 and then the child shall be handed over to the father and he shall be permitted to keep the child until by a further date be fixed by the court and on or before 17/8/2009, first respondent shall inform the court the date on which she proposes to leave India with child and as directed the father has to return the

¶26

CRMC 2947/09

¶27

¶28

child to the mother and after the child is so returned, the mother shall be permitted to take the child with her to Ireland subject to the terms of settlement. It is admitted by the parties that subsequently the child was also taken to Ireland by second respondent.

¶29

Second respondent appeared through a counsel and also filed Annexure-C affidavit stating that in view of the settlement and the custody of the child given to her, she has no grievance against the petitioner and therefore, she has no objection to quash the proceedings.

¶30

Learned counsel appearing for

¶31

petitioner, second respondent and learned Public Prosecutor were heard.

¶32

From Annexure-A FIR, Annexure-B judgment in Mat.Appeal 879/2008 and Annexure-E final report, it is clear that the case relates to the failure of the petitioner to give proper care and protection to the minor child and the dispute is consequent to the dispute between petitioner husband and second respondent wife. It was at a time, when there was dispute with regard to the custody of the

¶33

CRMC 2947/09

¶34

¶35

child. Though custody was given to the mother by the Family court, it was challenged before this court. In the matrimonial appeal, matter was settled and by Annexure-B judgment and by Annexure-B judgment accepting settlement, custody of the child was given to the second respondent, permitting her to take the child to Ireland. It is also admitted case that consequent to the settlement, the child had already been taken to Ireland by the second respondent. In view of the settlement of the

¶36

disputes which, includes a settlement of the dispute in this case also, evidenced by the report of settlement which forms part of Annexure-B judgment, it is not in the interest of justice to continue the proceedings.

¶37

Hence petition is allowed. C.C.550/2007

¶38

on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Changanasserry is quashed.

¶39

M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE.

¶40

uj.

Georgekutty Joseph v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Georgekutty Joseph v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.a.Chandran Vs the Commissioner of Police and Others

Mathew Thomas and 5 Others Vs State of Kerala and Another

Shaji Abraham Vs State of Kerala

V.C.Muhammed Ali Vs the Sub Inspector of Police, Perinthalma

Jeemon & Others Vs State of Kerala & Others

Col.Vijayan & Others Vs the State of Kerala & Another