Quashed

Padmanabha Bhat v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC11 Oct 2012Crl.MC/2434/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala quashed criminal proceedings against accused persons in C.C. No. 561/2010 involving Section 498A IPC charges. The court held that since the parties settled their dispute and divorced by mutual consent, further criminal prosecution was not called for as the offences were personal. The court emphasized that continued proceedings would waste judicial time with remote chances

What did the court decide?

Criminal proceedings in C.C. No. 561/2010 filed by the second respondent against the petitioners are quashed.

Padmanabha Bhat Vs State of Kerala — 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

THURSDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2012/19TH ASWINA 1934

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 2434 of 2012 (D)

¶6

-------------------------IN CC.561/2010 of ADDL.C.J.M., ERNAKULAM

¶7

PETITIONERS/ ACCUSED NOS 1 TO 3 : -

¶8

1. PADMANABHA BHAT, S/O.LATE LAXMINARAYANA BHAT, R/A.DOOR NO 1/1/3/.2ND MAIN, 8TH CROSS, HANUMANTHA NAGAR, BANGALORE-19.

¶9

2. SHOBHINI BHAT, W/O.LATE LAXMINARAYANA BHAT, R/A.DOOR NO 1/1/3/.2ND MAIN, 8TH CROSS, HANUMANTHA NAGAR, BANGALORE-19.

¶10

3. DEEPA ADIGA,

¶11

D/O.LATE LAXMINARAYANA BHAT, R/A.DOOR NO 1/1/3/.2ND MAIN, 8TH CROSS, HANUMANTHA NAGAR, BANGALORE-19.

¶12

BY ADV. SRI.ASHIK K.MOHAMMED ALI

¶13

RESPONDENTS / STATE & DE FACTO COMPLAINANT : -

¶14

1. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, (REPRESENTING THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PANANGAD POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM DIST)

¶15

2. DHANYA V.V, AGED 28 YEARS, D/O.LATE S.VADIRAJAN, VELUPPARAMBU MADAM, MARADU P.O., ERNAKULAM-682304

¶16

R2 BY ADV. SRI.G.SUDHEER R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. R. REMA

¶17

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11-10-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

Crl.MC.No. 2434 of 2012 (D)

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

PETITIONERS' ANNEXURES :

¶21

ANNEXURE A1 : TRUE COPY OF THE CHARGE SHEET IN CC NO.561 OF 2010 OF THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, ERNAKULAM.

¶22

ANNEXURE A2 : TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE 2^nd RESPONDENT.

¶23

RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES : NIL.

// TRUE COPY //

P.A. TO JUDGE

DMR/-

S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN,J.

¶28

--------------------------------------Crl.M.C. NO. 2434 of 2012

¶29

Dated this the 11^th day of October, 2012

¶30

ORDER

¶31

Petitioners are the accused in a pending case numbered as C.C.No.561 of 2010 on the file of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam. They are being prosecuted for the offence punishable under Section 498A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The crime thereof has arisen on the complaint of the second respondent, wife of the first respondent, imputing matrimonial cruelty and harassment by her husband and his close relatives. Now parties involved have settled their disputes and the spouses have severed their matrimonial relationship by a decree of divorce obtained on mutual consent, is the submission of the counsel. Second respondent/de facto complainant is no longer interested in prosecuting the petitioners/accused, is the further submission

¶32

Crl.M.C. NO. 2434 of 2012

¶33

¶34

of the counsel relying on Annexure A2 affidavit sworn to by that respondent, produced with the petition. Submissions made by the counsel for petitioners are endorsed by the counsel appearing for the second respondent. Having regard to the nature of the offence imputed which has arisen from the matrimonial disputes of the first petitioner and the second respondent, and taking note that on settlement they have severed their relationship as husband and wife, I find further continuation of the criminal proceedings against the petitioners are not called for. On the facts and circumstances presented it could be stated that the offences imputed are personal rather than affecting the public at large. Further more even if the criminal proceedings are continued against the petitioners chances of a successful prosecution leading to conviction of any of them are rather remote, and at best it may result in loss of precious time of the court only. Taking into such aspects also criminal proceedings against the petitioners/accused in C.C.No.561/2010 on the file of the

¶35

Crl.M.C. NO. 2434 of 2012

¶36

¶37

Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam, are quashed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶38

Crl.M.C. is disposed of.

¶39

S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN JUDGE.

¶40

DMR /-

Padmanabha Bhat v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Padmanabha Bhat 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

Jomon Cyriac Vs Anilkumar

Mohanan & Ors. Vs State of Kerala & Ors.

Smikesh D Vs Sidhukkul Akbar

B.Sudhakumar Vs State of Kerala

James Joseph Vs State No Kerala

Abdul Rafeeque.M.a. Vs State of Kerala