Disposed

Robin Aunny and 0THERS v. State of Kerala and Another

Kerala HC1 Dec 2009Crl.MC/3166/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal miscellaneous case, the High Court addressed an application to quash proceedings based on a settlement agreement. The Court held that quashing requires the de facto complainant's agreement before it. However, in aid of settlement, it directed the trial court not to insist on the accused's presence for three months.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the trial court not to insist on the presence of petitioners in C.P. No. 21 of 2009 for three months.

Robin Aunny and 0THERS Vs State of Kerala and Another — 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

TUESDAY, THE 1ST DECEMBER 2009 / 10TH AGRAHAYANA 1931

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 3166 of 2009()

¶6

------------------------CP.21/2009 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I, KOZHIKODE CRIME NO.72/2008 OF CHEVAYUR POLICE STATION

¶7

PETITIONERS: ACCUSED 1 TO 3

¶8

¶9

REBIN SUNNY, AGED 30 YEARS, S/O.N.A.SUNNY, NEDUMPARAMBIL HOUSE, I.M.A.LANE, MISSION QUARTERS, THRISSUR-680 0O1.

¶10

MRS.MARY SUNNY, AGED 49 YEARS, W/O..N.A.SUNNY, NEDUMPARAMBIL HOUSE, I.M.A.LANE, MISSION QUARTERS, THRISSUR-680 0O1.

¶11

N.A.SUNNY,AGED 55 YEARS, S/O.N.A.ANTHAPPAN, NEDUMPARAMBIL HOUSE, I.M.A.LANE, MISSION QUARTERS, THRISSUR-680 0O1.

¶12

BY ADV. SRI.ALAN PAPALI

¶13

SRI.SOJAN MICHEAL

¶14

RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANTS

¶15

¶16

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

¶17

VINU REBIN, AGED 24 YEARS, W/O.REBIN SUNNY,CHEERAN HOUSE, MALAPARAMBA, CHEVAYUR, KOZHIKODE DIST.

¶18

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.S.U.NAZAR

¶19

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR J.

¶21

CRL.M.C No. 3166 of 2009

¶22

Dated this the 1^st day of December, 2009.

¶23

O R D E R

¶24

Petitioners are the accused in C.P.No.21 of 2009 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-I, Kozhikode, taken cognizance for the offence under Section 406, 498-A and 315 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. This petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the final report and the cognizance taken, contending that the entire disputes were settled between the parties, evidenced by Annexure II agreement.

¶25

Though Ext.P2 agreement shows that the disputes were finally settled as per the terms of agreement, the terms provided for certain conditions fulfilled by both parties. The petitioner would contend that entire conditions to be fulfilled by them, were complied with and in such circumstances, the case is to be quashed. In Annexure II agreement second respondent, defacto complainant has agreed that she has no objection in quashing this proceedings.

¶26

When the petition came up for admission on 5.10.2009, second respondent did not appear. An opportunity was granted to the petitioners to see that second respondent appears and agrees for the settlement. Even though, it was posted to 27.10.2009, second respondent did not appear. Thereafter the case was adjourned and directed to post the case on filing a joint petition. The joint petition was

¶27

¶28

CRL.M.C No. 3166 of 2009

¶29

not filed and at the instance of the petitioners the case was taken up today.

¶30

The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners was heard. The learned senior counsel submitted that as provided in Annexure II agreement, petitioners have produced the fixed deposit receipt for Rs.40,00,000/- before the Family Court, Kozhikode and in such circumstances, second respondent is bound to report no objection for quashing the crime in the present case. But invoking the extraordinary power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the case can be quashed only if the defacto complainant agrees for the same before this Court. It is not done. In such circumstances the case cannot be quashed as sought for.

¶31

The learned senior counsel then submitted that presence of the petitioners may not be insisted before Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Kozhikode, as the second respondent is not appearing and the proceedings before the Family Court is not closed. In such circumstances, Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Kozhikode is directed not to insist for the presence of the petitioners in C.P.No.21 of 2009 for three months. Petitioners are at liberty to file a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the proceedings, in case second respondent agrees for the same.

¶32

Sd/M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE

¶33

Robin Aunny and 0THERS v. State of Kerala and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Robin Aunny and 0THERS v. State of Kerala and Another

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

Yajesh.R Vs State of Kerala

Jancy Daniel Vs Prameela

Annie John & Others Vs State of Kerala

Swami Guadapadanandapuri Vs State of Kerala

Bejoy @ Abraham Vs Siji and Another

Sabeer Hussain and Others Vs State of Kerala and Others