The court allowed a petition for quashing proceedings under Section 498A IPC filed by police after investigation, finding that the matrimonial disputes had been settled amicably. Relying on B.S. Joshi, the court held it was not in the interest of justice to continue the prosecution.
The Criminal Misc. Case No.467/2009 was quashed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR
TUESDAY, THE 19TH JANUARY 2010 / 29TH POUSHA 1931
Crl.MC.No. 172 of 2010()
-----------------------CC.467/2009 of JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, KOTHAMANGALAM. CRIME NO.1357/2009 OF KOTHAMANGALAM POLICE STATION.
PETITIONERS/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT/ACCUSED
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. BIJI, AGED 29 YEARS, D/O. KRISHNANKUTTY, KARICKAL HOUSE, POTHANIKADU P.O.
2. RAJEEV T.K., AGED 40 YEARS, S/O. LATE KUTTAPPAN, THONIKUZHI CHALIL HOUSE, RAMALLOOR, NEAR KARIKUZHIPALAM, KOTHAMANGALAM P.O.-686 691, PERMANENTLY RESIDING AT VALARA P.O., THONIPARA, IDUKKI DISTRICT.
BY ADV. MR.JOHNSON ABRAHAM, MR.S.GOPINATHAN, MR.NELSON ABRAHAM.
RESPONDENT(S):
--------------------------
STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KOTHAMANGALAM POLICE STATION, BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA.
BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.S.U. NAZAR.
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
rs.
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J.
===========================
CRL.M.C.No.172 OF 2010
===========================
Dated this the 19th day of January,2010
ORDER
First petitioner is the de facto complainant wife and second petitioner her
husband the accused in C.C.467/2009 on the file
of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kothamangalam taken cognizance for the offence under section 498A of Indian Penal Code on Annexure 2 final report submitted after investigation. This petition is filed under section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure contending that entire matrimonial disputes were settled amicably and in view of the settlement, it is not in the interest of
justice to continue the prosecution.
affidavit stating that they have two children aged 10 and 5 years in the wedlock and the
Crl.M.C.172/2010 2
husband filed O.P.1001/2009 before Family Court, Ernakulam and during the pendency of the petition petitioner filed a complaint alleging an offence under section 498A of Indian Penal Code before Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kothamangalam which was sent for investigation and after investigation Annexure 2 final report was filed based on which the case was taken cognizance and now the entire disputes were settled amicably and the withdrawal of the case is necessary to settle O.P.1001/2009 and in view of the settlement the case is to be quashed.
petitioners and learned Public Prosecutor were heard.
Crl.M.C.172/2010 3
they have settled the matrimonial disputes. As held by the Apex Court in B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana (2003) 4 SCC 675) it is not in the interest of justice to stand on technicalities and continue the prosecution, when the entire matrimonial disputes were settled amicably.
Petition is allowed. C.C.467/2009 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court,
Kothamangalam is quashed.
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE
tpl/-
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J.
W.P.(C).NO. /06
--------------------JUDGMENT
SEPTEMBER,2006
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the quashing of the criminal proceedings is in the interest of justice in view of the complete settlement of the matrimonial dispute.
Whether the Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. be allowed and the case quashed.
Whether the Supreme Court's decision in B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana applies in the present case where the dispute was settled amicably.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
B.S. Joshi v. State of HaryanaReferred¶36
(2003) 4 SCC 675 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Biji
Rajeev T.K.
State of Kerala
M.Sasidharan Nambiar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
