Dismissed

Viswanathan v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC16 Feb 2009Crl.Rev.Pet/476/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court disposed of a criminal revision petition challenging convictions under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The court held that as the dispute was private, the offence allowed compounding by settlement and the petitioners were acquitted.

What did the court decide?

The criminal revision petition was disposed of by acquitting the petitioners of the offence punishable under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

Viswanathan Vs State of Kerala — Dowry and Cruelty | Kerala HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR

¶4

MONDAY, THE 16TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 27TH MAGHA 1930

¶5

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 476 of 2007()

¶6

----------------------------CRA.243/2004 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT(ADHOC)III, PATHANAMTHITTA

¶7

CC.352/2002 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURTII,PATHANAMTHITTA

¶8

.................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPELLANTS/ACCUSED 1 TO 3 & 5 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

¶9

VISWANATHAN, S/O.SIVANKUTTY, RAJENDRA VILASOM, PORUVAZHI VADAKKU MURI, PORUVAZHI VILLAGE, KUNNATHOOR TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT.

¶10

RADHAKRISHNAN, S/O.SIVANKUTTY, RAJENDRA VILASOM, PORUVAZHI VADAKKU MURI, PORUVAZHI VILLAGE, KUNNATHOOR TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT.

¶11

SANTHOSH, S/O.SIVANKUTTY, RAJENDRA VILASOM, PORUVAZHI VADAKKU MURI, PORUVAZHI VILLAGE, KUNNATHOOR TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT.

¶12

SARADA, D/O SIVANKUTTY, RAJENDRA VILASOM, PORUVAZHI VADAKKU MURI, PORUVAZHI VILLAGE, KUNNATHOOR TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT.

¶13

BY ADV. SRI.P.HARIDAS

¶14

CRL.R.P.No.476/2007

¶15

¶16

RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT

¶17

¶18

SANTHAMMA BALAN, W/O BALAN, NEDUMURUPPEL VEEDU, KOTTAYAM MURI L& VILLAGE, KOZHENCHERI TALUK.

¶19

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

¶20

ADV. SRI.LOVEJITH K.ANAND FOR R1

¶21

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.PUZHAKKARA MOHAMMED

¶22

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

V. RAMKUMAR, J.

¶24

= = = = = = = = = = = = = Crl.R.P.No.476 of 2007

¶25

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 16th day of February, 2009

¶26

O R D E R

¶27

In this revision filed under Sec. 397 read with Sec.401 Cr.P.C.

¶28

the petitioners, who are the accused in C.C. No. 352 of 2002 on the file of the J.F.C.M-II, Pathanamthitta for offences punishable under Sections 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, challenge the conviction entered and the sentence passed against them concurrently by the courts below for the aforesaid offence.

¶29

The case of the prosecution is that the petitioners obtained 10 cents of land and made an additional demand of Rs.One lakh for the petitioner marrying the niece of the de facto complainant. They have thereby committed the aforementioned offence.

¶30

Pending this revision the revision petitioners and the 1^st respondent/complainant have settled the matter and the petitioners are alleged to have disgorged whatever they had received in consideration of the marriage. They have also filed Crl.M.A.No.541/2009 under Section 482 Cr.P.C requesting to

¶31

Crl.R.P.No.476 of 2007

¶32

¶33

compound the offence and acquitting the petitioners .

¶34

Since the matter was a private dispute between the accused persons and the de facto complainant, applying the ratio in Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab (2008(4) SCC 582), the offence is permitted to be compounded and it will have the effect of acquitting the revision petitioners of the offence punishable under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

¶35

In the result, this Revision is disposed of as above.

¶36

Dated this the 16th day of February, 2009

¶37

V.Ramkumar, Judge.

¶38

Viswanathan v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Viswanathan 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

Sebastian.T Vs Abdul Gafoor.M

Maniyappan Vs Pooram Kuries and Loans (P) Ltd.

Muhammed Molla Vs Usman

Mani T. Mundat Vs State of Kerala, Rep. by Sub Inspector

Hiranmayee Devi Vs T.S.Sreekumaran Nair and Another

V.R.Renjith Vs the Kottyam Dist.Co-Op.Bank Ltd.