Quashed

Sajeev Varghese Alias Saji v. Ani C.Abraham

Kerala HC11 Feb 2009Crl.MC/524/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala quashed criminal proceedings under Section 498A IPC. The petitioners, accused in the case, filed a criminal miscellaneous petition praying for quashing. The court noted that the parties had resolved their marital disputes via a compromise petition at the Family Court. Relying on B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana, the court held that encouraging settlements is the duty of the

What did the court decide?

The criminal proceedings in C.C.128/08 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Pathanamthitta arising from Crime No.445/07 were quashed.

Sajeev Varghese Alias Saji Vs Ani C.Abraham — Matrimonial and Divorce | Kerala HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 22ND MAGHA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 524 of 2009() -----------------------CC.128/2008 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-I, PATHANAMTHITTA

¶4

................................................. (CRIME NO.445/07 OF ARANMULA POLICE STATION)

¶5

PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED 1 TO 4:

¶6

---------------------------------------------------1. SAJEEV VARGHESE ALIAS SAJI, S/O.V.C.VARGHESE, KARIKKOTT SONU VILLA, PALACHUVAD, PARUMALA P.O., THIRUVALLA.

¶7

2. V.C.VARGHESE, KARIKKOTT SONU VILLA,PALACHUVAD, PARUMALA P.O., THIRUVALLA.

¶8

3. LEELAMMA VARGHESE, W/O. V.C. VARGHESE, KARIKKOTT SONU VILLA,PALACHUVAD, PARUMALA P.O., THIRUVALLA.

¶9

4. SONIA VARGHESE ALIAS SONU VARGHESE, D/O. V.C. VARGHESE, KARIKKOTT SONU VILLA,PALACHUVAD, PARUMALA P.O., THIRUVALLA.

¶10

BY ADV. MR.K.SASIKUMAR

¶11

RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT:

¶12

----------------------------------------------------

¶13

1. ANI.C. ABRAHAM D/O. C.V.ABRAHAM,CHIRAKKAROTT VEEDU, CHEKKULAM MURI, THEKKEMALA (PO) KOZHENCHERRY.

¶14

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

¶15

R1 BY ADVS.MR.S.KANNAN,

¶16

MR.LALU JOHN.

¶17

R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. GIKKU JACOB

¶18

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

Kss

¶20

M.N. KRISHNAN, J.

¶21

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = CRL.M.C. NO. 524 OF 2009 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 11^th day of February, 2009.

¶22

O R D E R

¶23

This petition is filed with a prayer to quash the proceedings in C.C.128/08 pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Pathanamthitta arising from Crime No.445/07 of Aranmula Police Station. Petitioners herein are the accused in the above case and a crime is initiated against them u/s 498A of IPC on a complaint filed by the wife. Large number of matrimonial disputes had arisen of which one is u/s 498A also and it is seen that the matrimonial disputes had been resolved by filing a compromise petition before the Family Court, at Thiruvalla. The wife has also filed an affidavit that the matter has been settled between the parties and in the interest of justice further proceedings need not be proceeded with. It is seen from the affidavit filed that the parties have decided to move joint application for divorce and that all the matters including the case u/s 498A have been compromised. In the decision reported in B.S.

¶24

CRL.M.C. 524 OF 2009

¶25

-:2:-

¶26

Joshi v. State of Haryana (2003 (4) SCC 675) the Apex Court had given the guidelines to be followed in these types of cases. In that decision the Supreme Court held that,

¶27

“While exercising inherent power of quashing under Section 482, it is for the High Court to take into consideration any special features which appear in a particular case to consider whether it is expedient and in the interest of justice to permit a prosecution to continue.

¶28

It also held that,

¶29

“It becomes the duty of the Court to encourage genuine settlements of matrimonial disputes.” and further observed that a hypertechnical view would be counterproductive and would act against the interests of women and against the object for which S.498A was added.

¶30

Now the parties have compromised the case.

¶31

They want to put a peaceful end to the matrimonial relationship and part as friends and therefore I feel in the interest of justice the inherent power u/s 482 can be invoked

¶32

CRL.M.C. 524 OF 2009

¶33

-:3:-

¶34

to quash the proceedings. Therefore I quash the proceedings initiated in C.C.128/08 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Pathanamthitta arising from Crime No.445/07 of Aranmula Police Station.

¶35

M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE.

¶36

ul/-

Sajeev Varghese Alias Saji v. Ani C.Abraham

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sajeev Varghese Alias Saji v. Ani C.Abraham

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

Arogyamary Vs Senior Manager

Shiju.S. Vs State of Kerala

Mansoor Vs State of Kerala,Rep.by S.I.of Police

Jaison Vs State of Kerala

Satheesan Vs State of Kerala and Another

Nisha.G. Vs State of Kerala ,Rep.by P.Prosecutor