The High Court quashed criminal proceedings against petitioners arising from matrimonial disputes after a Magistrate confirmed a voluntary settlement between the parties, holding that further prosecution would not serve justice.
Criminal proceedings in C.C.No.715/2012 on the file of Judicial Magistrate Court-I, Kollam, are 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 S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN
MONDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF AUGUST 2012/15TH SRAVANA 1934
Crl.MC.No. 2097 of 2012 (B)
.NO./ IN OPGW.1143/2011 of FAMILY COURT,KOLLAM .NO./ IN CC.715/2012 of JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT -I, KOLLAM
PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED 1-4::
1. ANIL KUMAR Y, SON OF YETHEENDRA DAS, RESIDING AT VALATHUNGAL VEEDU, MANGAD P.O., KOLLAM, PIN-691 005.
2. RAJAMMA,
3. SUNIL KUMAR, SON OF YETHEENDRA DAS, RESIDING AT VALATHUNGAL VEEDU, MANGAD P.O., KOLLAM, PIN-691 005.
4. SANIL KUMAR, SON OF YETHEENDRA DAS, RESIDING AT VALATHUNGAL VEEDU, MANGAD P.O., KOLLAM, PIN-691 005.
BY ADV. SRI.JOHNSON GOMEZ
RESPONDENT(S):
1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY TEH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
2. SYAMANTHAKOM, AGED 38 YEARS, DAUGHTER OF KANAKARAJAN, SREEDEVI MANDIRAM, EDAVATTOM, VELLIMON P.O., KOLLAM.
R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI R RANJITH R2 BY ADV. SRI.S.BIJU (KIZHAKKANELA)
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06-08-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
LSN
Crl.MC.No. 2097 of 2012 (B)
ANNEXURE
PETITIONER(S) ANNEXURE
| ANNEXURE A1: ANNEXURE A2: |
A TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE KILIKOLLOOR POLICE IS CRIME NO.564 OF 2011. A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPROMISE PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONERS AND THE SECOND RESPONDENT. |
|---|---|
| ANNEXURE A3: | A TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION IN OP.NO.235 OF 2012 ON THE FILE OF THE FAMILY COURT, KOLLAM. |
| ANNEXURE A4: | A TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT LETTER ISSUED BY M/S.ARROW INVEST,SA. |
RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURE:
NIL
//TRUE COPY//
P.A TO JUDGE
LSN
S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN,J.
Crl.M.C. NO. 2097 of 2012
Dated this the 06th day of August, 2012
ORDER
Read order dated 08.06.2012, by which parties have been directed to appear before the Magistrate and move a joint application to have an enquiry on the settlement purported to have been effected by them. The Magistrate was directed to conduct an enquiry whether the second respondent has voluntarily settled the matter with the petitioners/accused. Report received from the Magistrate, after conducting such enquiry, reveals that on free consent and voluntarily the second respondent/de facto complainant has settled all disputes connected with the case with the petitioners/accused. The case has arisen from the matrimonial disputes between the second respondent/de facto complainant and her husband, which led to prosecution proceedings against his relatives as well apart from him. Having regard to the nature of the offence imputed against
Crl.M.C. NO. 2097 of 2012 2
the petitioners/accused which has arisen from the matrimonial disputes of the spouses, and taking note of the settlement effected by the parties, I find further criminal proceedings against the petitioners/accused may not be conducive to justice. The offence imputed against the petitioners could be treated as personal, and not affecting the public at large. Further more in view of the settlement effected by the parties successful prosecution of the petitioners may not be possible. Considering those aspects also, the criminal proceedings against the petitioners/accused in C.C.No.715/2012 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court-I, Kollam, are quashed invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Crl.M.C. is disposed of.
S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN JUDGE.
DMR /-
3 issues framed by the court
Whether criminal proceedings against petitioners/arrested relatives arising out of matrimonial disputes should be quashed in view of post-facto settlement.
Whether the offence is personal in nature affecting public at large.
Whether a joint application for enquiry into voluntary settlement was successfully proven by the Magistrate.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Anil Kumar Y
Rajamma
Sunil Kumar
Sanil Kumar
State of Kerala
Syamantakom
S.S. Satheesachandran
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
