Allowed

Mohanan & Ors. v. State of Kerala & Ors.

Kerala HC10 Oct 2012Crl.MC/1140/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Kerala quashed criminal proceedings against the first accused in a split case arising from matrimonial disputes, holding that continued prosecution would rupture the restored marital relationship and waste court time given the settlement. The quashal was done under Section 482 CrPC.

What did the court decide?

Criminal proceedings against the first petitioner in C.C. No. 78 of 2010 were quashed under Section 482 of the Code.

Mohanan & Ors. Vs State of Kerala & Ors. — Matrimonial and Divorce | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2012/18TH ASWINA 1934

¶5

Crl. MC. No. 1140 of 2012 ( )

¶6

CC.78/2010 of J.M.F.C.-I, PALAKKAD

¶7

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED:

¶8

1. MOHANAN, S/O. RAMAKRISHNAN, KADUNGATH HOUSE, THENKURUSSY P.O., PALAKKAD.

¶9

2. MADHAVI, W/O. RAMAKRISHNAN,

¶10

KADUNGATH HOUSE, THENKURUSSY P.O.,

¶11

PALAKKAD.

¶12

3. SOMAN, S/O. RAMAKRISHNAN,

¶13

KADUNGATH HOUSE, THENKURUSSY P.O.,

¶14

PALAKKAD.

¶15

BY ADV. SRI.K.ANAND

¶16

RESPONDENTS/STATE & COMPLAINANT:

¶17

1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY

¶18

THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,

¶19

ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-31.

¶20

2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,

¶21

COYALMANNAM POLICE STATION-678 702.

¶22

3. SAJITHA, D/O. MANI, MANALIKKAD, ERATTAYAL, MARUTHAROAD, PALAKKAD-678 001.

¶23

R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. R. REMA R3 BY ADV. SRI. M.R. NANDAKUMAR

¶24

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10-10-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶25

¶26

Crl. MC. No. 1140 of 2012

¶27

APPENDIX

¶28

PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:-

¶29

ANNX.	A -	COPY OF THE COMPLAINT PREFERRED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT BEFORE THE JFCM, PALAKKAD DATED 14.12.2009.
ANNX.	B -	COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT DATED 30.01.2010 IN FIR NO. 1/2010 OF THE KUZHALMANNAM POLICE STATION.
ANNX.	C -	COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 29.06.2011.

¶30

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:- NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE.

S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J.

¶35

----------------------------------------------- Crl.M.C.No.1140 of 2012 ----------------------------------------------Dated this the 10^th day of October, 2012

¶36

O R D E R

¶37

Petitioners are the accused in a case numbered as C.C.No.78 of 2010 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class-I, Palakkad. It is submitted that the trial proceeded against two among the accused (A2 and A3) has ended in their acquittal. Since the petitioner (A1) was not available when such trial proceeded, the case against him, it is stated, has been split up, to proceed against him as and when his presence is secured. Cognizance of the offences imputed in the case has been taken on a report filed by the police, and that too imputing of non-bailable offences. However, learned counsel for the petitioners

¶38

Crl.M.C.No.1140 of 2012

¶39

:: 2 ::

¶40

submits that the crime arose on a complaint filed by the 3^rd respondent, wife of the first petitioner, on account of the matrimonial disputes prevailing between the spouses. Now all matrimonial disputes have been resolved by them and the 1^st petitioner and the 3^rd respondent, the spouses are living under the same roof, is the submission of the counsel, and that is endorsed by the learned counsel appearing for the 3^rd respondent/de facto complainant as well. In the aforesaid circumstances continuation of the criminal proceedings against the 1^st petitioner (A1) on the basis of the complaint launched by his wife would only cause difficulties to both of them and as such, invoking the inherent powers of this court the criminal proceedings against the first petitioner may be quashed, is the submission of the counsel on both sides.

¶41

Crl.M.C.No.1140 of 2012

¶42

:: 3 ::

¶43

Learned Public Prosecutor, who was

¶44

directed to ascertain the correctness of the representation made over the settlement effected by the spouses, after getting instructions, has reported that the spouses are now living together resolving all matrimonial disputes. When that be the case, I find, continuation of the criminal proceedings against the 1^st petitioner in the split up case would only result in rupturing the renewed matrimonial relationship between the parties, and it will not be conducive to justice. The offences imputed having arisen from the matrimonial disputes of the spouses, it could be stated that they are only personal, and not affecting the public at large. Even if the prosecution against the petitioner in the split up case is continued, in view of the settlement effected by the spouses, there is remote chance of that prosecution leading

¶45

Crl.M.C.No.1140 of 2012

¶46

to the conviction of the 1^st petitioner. It may, at

¶47

best, lead to wastage of precious time of the court.

¶48

Taking into account all the above

¶49

aspects, criminal proceedings against the 1^st petitioner proceeded as the 1^st accused in C.C.No.78 of 2010 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class-I, Palakkad, are quashed under Section 482 of the Code.

¶50

Crl.M.C is disposed of as above.

¶51

sk/-

¶52

//true copy//

Mohanan & Ors. v. State of Kerala & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohanan & Ors. v. State of Kerala & Ors.

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

Nujeeb Rahman Vs Rasnimol

Pradeepan Vs State of Kerala

Asharaf Backer Vs Central Bureau of Investigation/Acb

Jomon Cyriac Vs Anilkumar

Smikesh D Vs Sidhukkul Akbar

Varkey Goerge Vs State of Kerala