Allowed

Vinod M v. Namitha

Kerala HC15 Oct 2010Crl.MC/1620/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a case taken cognizance under Section 498 IPC read with Section 34 IPC, the Kerala High Court allowed a petition under Section 482 CrPC to quash proceedings. The court quashed the case after the parties reached a mediated settlement regarding the matrimonial dispute, citing that continuing prosecution on technicalities is against the interest of justice.

What did the court decide?

C.C. 7/2008 on the file of Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court, Thodupuzha is quashed.

Vinod M Vs Namitha — Matrimonial and Divorce | Kerala HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 15TH OCTOBER 2010 / 23RD ASWINA 1932

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 1620 of 2008()

¶6

------------------------------------C.C.NO.7/2008 OF CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, THODUPUZHA. .................

¶7

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 TO 3

¶8

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

¶9

1. VINOD. M., S/O.P.K. MURALEEDHARAN NAIR, AGED 29, NALUTHUNDIL VEEDU, ADOOR, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.

¶10

2. REMADEVI, W/O.P.K. MURALEEDHARAN NAIR, AGED 54, NALUTHUNDIL VEEDU, ADOOR, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.

¶11

3. MANOJ, S/O.P.K. MURALEEDHARAN NAIR, AGED 33, NALUTHUNDIL VEEDU, ADOOR, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.

¶12

4. DEEPTHI, D/O.P.K. MURALEEDHARAN NAIR, AGED 22, NALUTHUNDIL VEEDU, ADOOR, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.

¶13

5. DEEPA, W/O.MANOJ, AGED 26, NALUTHUNDIL VEEDU, ADOOR, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.

¶14

BY ADV. SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI

¶15

RESPONDENTS/STATE AND COMPLAINANT

¶16

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

¶17

1. NAMITHA, D/O.N. VIJAYAKUMAR, AATHIRA NEELAKANTA VILAS, THODUPUZHA P.O., IDUKKI.

¶18

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

¶19

R1 BY ADV. SRI.K.K.CHANDRAN PILLAI. R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.REKHA C.NAIR.

¶20

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

rs.

¶22

M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J.

¶23

--------------------------------------------- CRL.M.C.NO.1620 OF 2008 --------------------------------------------- Dated 15^th October, 2010

¶24

O R D E R

¶25

Petitioners are the accused and

¶26

first respondent, the de facto complainant in C.C.7/2008 on the file of Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court, Thodupuzha taken cognizance for the offence under Section 498 A read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. First petitioner is the husband and first respondent, the wife. Petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the proceedings pending before the learned Magistrate.

¶27

As it is matrimonial dispute, petitioners and first respondent requested to refer the matter for mediation. Consequently, as agreed, case was sent for

¶28

¶29

Crmc 1620/08

¶30

mediation. A report was submitted by Kerala Mediation Centre, to the effect that the disputes were settled in the mediation. The agreement signed by first petitioner and first respondent was submitted along with the report. The agreement reads;

¶31

“Parties further agree that the second party (first respondent) has no objection in allowing Crl.M.C.1670/2008 by this Honourable Court and to quash charge sheet cum final report in Crime No.949/2007 of Thodupuzha Police Station and further proceedings in C.C.7/2008 on the file of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thodupuzha, regarding alleged commission of offence punishable under Section 498 A of Indian Penal Code.”

¶32

Crmc 1620/08

¶33

¶34

Annexure-A final report shows

¶35

that it was taken cognizance as C.C.7/2008 by

¶36

Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thodupuzha. Therefore, though the number of Crl.M.C is wrongly shown as Crl.M.C.1670/2008 instead of 1620/2008, it is clear that what was settled between the parties is the dispute involved in C.C.7/2008 the cognizance taken on Annexure-A final report for the offence under Section 498 A of Indian Penal Code. The agreement arrived at between first petitioner

¶37

and first respondent establish that matrimonial disputes were settled. As held by the Apex Court in B.S.Joshi and others v.

¶38

State of Haryana and another (2003(4) SCC 675 ), when matrimonial disputes are settled amicably, it is not in the interest of justice to continue the prosecution standing

Crmc 1620/08

on technicalities.

Petition is allowed. C.C.7/2008 on

¶43

the file of Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court, Thodupuzha is quashed.

¶44

M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE.

¶45

uj.

Vinod M v. Namitha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vinod M v. Namitha

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

Indo Arya Central Transport Vs Johny Paul

Mohandas Vs State of Kerala

Tomy Mathew Vs Emmanuel Kurian

A.K.Sugunan Vs State of Kerala

K.T.Joseph, M.D.Indo Scottish Distillery Vs the State of Kerala

Paul Joseph @ Paul P.K. Vs State of Kerala