Allowed

Manoj v. and 5 Others v State of Kerala & Another

Kerala HC8 Nov 2010Crl.MC/3980/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala quashed an FIR under Section 498A IPC in a criminal miscellaneous petition filed by husband and relatives. The court held that since the matrimonial dispute was settled amicably and the parties were living together, continuing proceedings was not in the interest of justice, relying on V.S.Joshi.

What did the court decide?

Crime No.903 of 2010 of Paripally Police Station registered under Annexure A1 FIR is quashed.

Manoj v. and 5 Others Vs State of Kerala & Another — 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

MONDAY, THE 8TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 17TH KARTHIKA 1932

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 3980 of 2010()

¶6

-----------------------------------( CRIME NO.903/2010 OF PARIPALLY POLICE STATION, KOLLAM) -------------------

¶7

PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED 1 TO 6

¶8

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

¶9

1. MANOJ.V., AGED 38, S/O.VIVEKANANDAN, SANDHYA NILAYAM, BHOOTHAKKULAM CHERRY, BHOOTHAKKULAM VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT.

¶10

2. DEEPU.V., AGED 37, S/O.VIVEKANANDAN, SANDHYA NILAYAM, BHOOTHAKKULAM CHERRY, BHOOTHAKKULAM VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT.

¶11

3. SANDHYA, AGED 36, W/O.MURALEEDHARAN AKSHARA, ATTORKONAM CHERRY, VELINALLOOR VILLAGE, KARINGANNOOR, KOLLAM DISTRICT.

¶12

4. BABY KAMALAM, AGED 60, W/O.VIVEKANANDAN, SANDHYA NILAYAM, BHOOTHAKKULAM CHERRY, BHOOTHAKKULAM VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT.

¶13

5. SATHYADEVAN, AGED 70, S/O.RAGHAVAN, LAKSHMI NIVAS, PUTHUVAD CHERRY, ELAKAMON VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.

¶14

6. MURALEEDHARAN, AGED 45, S/O.MADAHVAN, AKSHARA, ATTORKONAM CHERRY, VELINALLOOR VILLAGE, KARINGANNOOR, KOLLAM DISTRICT.

¶15

BY ADV. SRI.AJAYA KUMAR. G

¶16

RESPONDENT(S): STATE / DEFACTO COMPLAINANT

¶17

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

¶18

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

¶19

2. BINDU.S., AGED 31, D/O.SASIDHARAN, KARTHIKA, PAMPURAM, MEVANAKONAM CHERRY, PARIPALLY VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT.

¶20

R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.I.V.PRAMOD R2 BY ADV. SRI.M.R.SARIN PANICKER

¶21

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

sts

¶23

M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J

¶24

........................................... CRL.M.C..NO.3980 OF 2010

¶25

............................................ DATED THIS THE 8th DAY OF NOVEMBER,2010

¶26

ORDER

¶27

Petitioners are accused and second respondent defacto complainant in Crime No.903 of 2010 of Paripally Police Station registered for the offences under Section 498A, on Annexure A1 FIR. First petitioner is the husband and second respondent his wife. Petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the FIR and further proceedings contending that entire matrimonial disputes were settled amicably and the husband and wife are now living together happily and in such circumstances, it is not in the interest of justice to continue the proceedings.

¶28

Second respondent appeared through a counsel and filed an affidavit stating that she has settled all the matrimonial disputes and is now happily living in a rented house with the first petitioner husband and in view of the settlement, she has decided to terminate all legal proceedings against all the accused and therefore the case is to be quashed. Second respondent, along with petitioners has also filed a

¶29

CRMC 3980/2010 2

¶30

joint petition stating that in view of the settlement, the proceedings is to be quashed.

¶31

Learned counsel appearing for petitioner, second respondent and learned Public Prosecutor were heard.

¶32

As held by the Apex Court in V.S.Joshi V. State of Haryana (2003(2) KLT 1062), when matrimonial disputes are settled amicably, and the husband and wife are living together, it is not in the interest of justice to continue the proceedings and jeopardize the cordial married life. The affidavit filed by second respondent and the joint petition filed by petitioners with second respondent establish that they have settled all the matrimonial disputes. In such circumstances, it is not in the interest of justice to continue the prosecution.

¶33

Petition is allowed. Crime No.903 of 2010 of Paripally Police Station registered under Annexure A1 FIR is quashed.

¶34

M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE

¶35

lgk

Manoj v. and 5 Others v State of Kerala & Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manoj v. and 5 Others v State of Kerala & Another

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

Abhilash Vs Kesavan

Ayoob and Another Vs State of Kerala and Another

Rijith Krishnan Vs Krishnanunni.M.a

Gadhadharan P. Vs Express Publications(Madurai)Ltd. & Ors.

Mujeeb and Another Vs State of Kerala and Another

E.P.Prithvirajan Vs State of Kerala