Allowed

Nishal Chandra Mohan v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC25 May 2011Crl.MC/699/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a petition to quash criminal proceedings under Section 498A IPC. Based on a settlement reached between the accused and the complainant, including adherence to the compromise for a joint divorce petition, the Court held that continuing the investigation was unnecessary and quashed the FIR and related proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Miscellaneous Case allowed; FIR in Crime No.1368 of 2010 and all subsequent proceedings against petitioners quashed.

Nishal Chandra Mohan Vs State of Kerala — Cheating and Forgery | Kerala HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 25TH MAY 2011 / 4TH JYAISHTA 1933

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 699 of 2011

¶6

-------------------------------[CRIME NO.1368/2010 OF PALARIVATTOM POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT]

¶7

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS. 1 TO 4:

¶8

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

¶9

1. NISHAL CHANDRA MOHAN ,AGED 30, S/O.CHANDRA MOHAN NAYAR, JYOTHI, POONTHI ROAD, KUMARAPURAM,TRIVANDRUM-11, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT P.O.BOX 22412, SAFATH, ZIP CODE -13085,KUWAIT.

¶10

2. MANI MOHAN, AGED 54, W/O. CHANDRA MOHAN NAYAR, JYOTHI,POONTHI ROAD, KUMARAPURAM,TRIVANDRUM-11, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT P.O.BOX 22412, SAFATT, ZIP CODE 13085,KUWAIT.

¶11

3. DR.DEEPAK, AGED 37, S/O.CHANDRA MOHAN NAYAR, JYOTHI,POONTHI ROAD, KUMARAPURAM,TRIVANDRUM-11, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT P.O.BOX 22412, SAFATT, ZIP CODE -13085,KUWAIT.

¶12

4. CHANDRA MOHAN NAYAR,AGED 66 S/O.RAMAN PILLAI,JYOTHI,POONTHI ROAD, KUMARAPURAM,TRIVANDRUM-11, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT P.O.BOX 22412, SAFATT, ZIP CODE- 13085,KUWAIT.

¶13

BY ADVS. SRI.B.RAMAN PILLAI, SRI.R.ANIL, SRI.ANIL K.MOHAMMED, SRI.SUJESH MENON V.B, SRI.SHYAM ARAVIND, SRI.T.ANIL KUMAR, SRI.MANU TOM.

¶14

RESPONDENTS/STATE AND DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:

¶15

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

¶16

1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA – 682 031.

¶17

CRL.M.C. NO. 699/2011:

¶18

2. KAVYA MADHAVAN, AGED 25, D/O.P.MADHAVAN, SAPPHIRE COURT VILLA 23, VENNALA P.O, EDAPALLY SOUTH VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT – 682 028.

¶19

R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. K.J. MOHAMMED ANZAR, R2 BY ADVS. SRI.A.V.THOMAS, SRI.G.SHRIKUMAR, SRI.BABU PAUL, SMT.M.M.JASMIN, SRI.NIDHI SAM JOHNS.

¶20

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/05/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

prv.

¶22

THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J.

¶23

==================================== Crl. M.C. No.699 of 2011

¶24

==================================== Dated this the 25^th day of May, 2011

¶25

O R D E R

¶26

Petitioners are accused 1 to 4 in Crime No.1368 of 2010 of Palarivattom Police Station for offence punishable under Section 498A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. That case was registered on a complaint preferred by the second respondent, wife of first petitioner alleging that petitioners subjected her to cruelty. Petitioners request this Court to quash proceedings against them on the strength of a settlement reached with the second respondent. I have heard learned counsel for petitioners, second respondent and the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶27

Annexure-B is the joint petition for divorce filed by first petitioner and second respondent in the Family Court, Ernakulam. Annexures-C and C1 are the withdrawal petitions in O.P. Nos.1284 and 1295 of 2010 (pursuant to the settlement with the petitioners). Annexure-D is the order dated October 23, 2010 passed by the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Ernakulam as per which M.C. No.21 of 2010 filed by second respondent under

¶28

CRL.M.C. No.699 of 2011

¶29

-: 2 :-

¶30

provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act was dismissed as withdrawn pursuant to the settlement reached with petitioners.

¶31

Joint petition filed by the first petitioner and second respondent came up for hearing in the Family Court, Ernakulam this day. Counsel on both sides submitted that parties had a councilling before the Counselor of the Family Court and it was decided by the parties that they would separate and proceed with the joint petition. Accordingly the second respondent has filed an affidavit where it is stated that she had agreed that Crime No.1368 of 2010 referred to above against petitioners is also settled and she has no objection in allowing this Crl. M.C filed by the petitioners.

¶32

It is seen that the dispute between the parties has been amicably settled outside court and as part of the settlement second respondent has agreed that she has no grievance against petitioners so far as the allegations made in Crime No.1368 of 2010 are concerned. Offence alleged is under Sec.498A of the IPC read with Sec.34 which is personal to and between petitioners and second respondent. The dispute having been amicably settled outside court it is not necessary to continue the

¶33

CRL.M.C. No.699 of 2011

¶34

-: 3 :-

¶35

proceeding against petitioners, in Crime No.1368 of 2011 investigation of which was stayed by this Court as per order dated March 09, 2011.

¶36

Resultantly, Criminal Miscellaneous Case is allowed. Annexure-I, FIR in Crime No.1368 of 2010 of Palarivattom Police Station and all proceedings taken pursuant to the registration of the case against petitioners are quashed.

¶37

THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE.

¶38

vsv

Nishal Chandra Mohan v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nishal Chandra Mohan 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anilkumar Vs State of Kerala

Nidusha and 4 Others Vs Anwar and Another

Asha and Another Vs Srekumari and Another

Babu Vs State of Kerala

R.Radhakrishnan Vs State of Kerala

M.O.Poulose Vs the Sub Inspector of Police