Quashed

Jincy Baby Thomas v. Varghese Binu Thomas

Kerala HC3 Oct 2012Crl.MC/2210/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala quashed criminal proceedings under Section 498A IPC relating to dowry harassment after a decree of divorce by mutual consent was filed. Citing Gian Singh, the court ruled that continued proceedings would be wasteful once the matrimonial dispute is resolved.

What did the court decide?

Criminal proceedings against the accused in C.C. No. 84 of 2012 are quashed under Section 482 of the Code.

Jincy Baby Thomas Vs Varghese Binu Thomas — 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 3RD DAY OF OCTOBER 2012/11TH ASWINA 1934`

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 2210 of 2012 ()

¶6

IN CC.84/2012 of JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-I, CHENGANNUR

¶7

PETITIONER/ DE FACTO COMPLAINANT:

¶8

JINCY BABY THOMAS, D/O BABY THOMAS, ARACKANATTIL HOUSE, PIRALASSERY MULAKKUZHA VILLAGE, CHENGANNUUR TALUK

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.A.SHAFEEK (KAYAMKULAM)

¶10

RESPONDENT/ACCUSED NOS. 1 TO 5:

¶11

1. VARGHESE BINU THOMAS, S/O THOMAS VARGHESE, KODUTHARA PUTHENVEEDU PUTHENKAVU MURI, CHENGANNUR VILLAGE

¶12

2. THOMAS VARGHESE, S/O VARGHESE, KODUTHARA PUTHENVEEDU, PUTHENKAVU MURI, CHEGANNUR VILLAGE

¶13

3. KUNJIMOL THOMAS, W/O THOMAS VARGHESE,KODUTHARA PUTHENVEEDU, PUTHENKAVU MURI, CHENGANNUR VILLAGE

¶14

4. BEENA SHIBU, W/O SHIBU NINAN, THUNDIL THEKKETHIL, PUTHENVEEDU PALLARAMANGALAM P.O, NORTH MANKKUZHI

¶15

5. SHIBU,

¶16

S/O C.V. NINAN, THUNDIL THEKKETHIL, PUTHENVEEDU PALLARIMANGALAM P.O, NORTH MANKKUZHI

¶17

6. STATE OF KERALA

¶18

REPRESENTED BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHENGANNUR THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA

¶19

R1 TO R5BY ADV. SRI.SAJU JOHN

¶20

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. R. REMA

¶21

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03-10-2012, ALONG WITH CRL.M.C. NO. 3153 OF 2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

dlk

¶23

Crl.MC.No. 2210 of 2012 ()

¶24

APPENDIX

¶25

PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS

¶26

ANNEXURE 1:CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO 792/2011

¶27

ANNEXURE 2:TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE AGREEMENT ENTERED INTO BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND 2ND RESPONDENT

¶28

ANNEXURE 3:TRUE COPY OF THE JOINT PETITION FOR DIVORCE FILED BY THE PETITIONER AND 1ST RESPONDENT

¶29

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS :

NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE.

dlk

S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN,J.

¶35

Crl.M.C.Nos. 2210, 3153 of 2012

¶36

Dated this the 3^rd day of October, 2012

¶37

O R D E R

¶38

The former of the two petitions is filed by the defacto

¶39

complainant and the latter by one among the accused(A2) in a case pending on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-1, Chengannur. The above case has arisen on a complaint of the de facto complainant alleging matrimonial cruelty and harassment by her husband, in laws and close relatives, demanding dowry. Investigation of that crime led to indictment of five accused persons for the offence punishable under Section 498A and r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Cognizance taken of the offence by the Magistrate, the case numbered as C.C.No.84 of 2012 awaits trial. During the pendency of the above criminal proceeding, spouses have resolved the matrimonial disputes and a decree of divorce dissolving that marriage on mutual consent has been passed by the competent family court, is the submission of counsel on both sides. De facto complainant has no further grievance and she does not wish to prosecute the accused persons, is the submission of her counsel. Copy of the

¶40

Crl.M.C.Nos. 2210, 3153 of 2012

¶41

¶42

decree of divorce granted by the family court has also been produced in Crl.M.C. No. 3153 of 2012. In the light of the submissions made by the counsel on both sides, and also taking note of the settlement effected by the spouses, whether continuation of the criminal proceedings against the accused persons is called for has to be examined. Since the offence imputed against the accused persons has arisen from the matrimonial dispute of the spouses, it could be stated that it is personal and not affecting the public at large. The Apex Court in Gian Singh V. State of Punjab [2012(2)KLT 108(SC)] has held that in a case of this nature even where the offence as such is not compoundable under Section 320 of the Criminal Procedure Code (for short the 'Code) settlement effected by the parties to

¶43

the proceedings can be taken due note of and orders for annulling the proceedings can be issued invoking the inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 of the Code. In view of the settlement effected by the spouses even if the prosecution is continued chances of conviction against the accused persons are rather remote and at best it may result only in wastage of

¶44

Crl.M.C.Nos. 2210, 3153 of 2012

¶45

¶46

precious time of the court. Taking note of that aspect also, criminal proceedings against the accused persons in C.C. No.84 of 2012 are quashed under Section 482 of the Code.

¶47

Petition is disposed of.

¶48

Sd/-

¶49

S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN,JUDGE.

¶50

//true copy/

¶51

P.A. To Judge.

¶52

dlk

Jincy Baby Thomas v. Varghese Binu Thomas

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jincy Baby Thomas v. Varghese Binu Thomas

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

Surajkumar Vs State of Kerala

Vidya Vs Geethabhai

M.K.Sukumar @ Suku Menon Vs Yasir

P.M.Immanuel Vs State of Kerala

Najeeb Vs State of Kerala

Sharabudeen Vs State of Kerala