Quashed

Dr.Bimal v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC17 Oct 2012Crl.MC/3063/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal miscellaneous petition, the High Court of Kerala invoked its inherent powers to quash criminal proceedings against a husband and mother-in-law accused of matrimonial cruelty. The court noted that the parties had settled their disputes and resumed living together, holding that continued prosecution would not serve justice.

What did the court decide?

Criminal proceedings against the petitioners in C.C. No. 260 of 2011 are quashed invoking inherent powers of the court.

Dr.Bimal Vs the 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

WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2012/25TH ASWINA 1934

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 3063 of 2012 ()

¶6

CRIME NO. 1200/2011 OF THRISSUR WEST POLICE STATION

¶7

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 AND 2 AND THE DEFACTO COMPALINANT :

¶8

1. DR.BIMAL, AGED 36, S/O. LATE AYYAPPAN, PLOT NO 538, 6TH LANE MG NAGAR, POONKUNNAM P.O, THRISSUR - 680003.

¶9

2. VASUMATHI, AGED 64, W/O. LATE AYYAPPAN, PLOT NO 538, 6TH LANE MG NAGAR, POONKUNNAM P.O, THRISSUR - 680003

¶10

3. DR. DHANYASREE, W/O.DR. BIMAL, PLOT NO 538, 6TH LANE MG NAGAR, POONKUNNAM P.O, THRISSUR 680003

¶11

BY ADVS.SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR) SRI.K.RAVI (PARIYARATH)

¶12

RESPONDENT/STATE OF KERALA :

¶13

THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE THRISSUR TOWN WEST POLICE STATION THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM - 682031

¶14

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. R. RANJITH

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17-10-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

¶17

...2/-

¶18

Crl.MC.No. 3063 of 2012 ()

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS :

¶21

ANNEXURE 1 A TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME 1200 OF 2011 OF THE THRISSUR TOWN WEST POLICE STATION ALONG WITH THE PRIVATE COMPLAINT DATED 20-08-2011

¶22

ANNEXURE II A TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT TAKEN COGNIZANCE BY THE LEARNED CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, AS CC NO 260 OF 2011 DATED 27-02-2012

¶23

ANNEXURE III ORIGINAL OF THE AFFIDAVIT OF THE THIRD PETITIONER DATED 13-09-2012.

¶24

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.S. TO JUDGE

S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J.

¶29

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

¶30

Crl.M.C.No.3063 of 2012

¶31

----------------------------------------------Dated this the 17^th day of October, 2012

¶32

O R D E R

¶33

The above petition has been filed jointly by the accused and the de facto complainant in a pending case numbered as C.C.No.260 of 2011 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thrissur. Third petitioner as the de facto complainant, alleging matrimonial cruelty and harassment against her husband and mother-in-law, petitioners 1 and 2 respectively, filed a complaint. Crime was registered for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, after investigation, led to indictment against the husband and his mother. Now, the spouses are living together after resolving all matrimonial disputes, is the submission of the counsel to seek invoking of the inherent powers of

¶34

Crl.M.C.No.3063 of 2012

¶35

:: 2 ::

¶36

this court to quash the criminal proceedings against the accused/ petitioners 1 and 2 in the pending case.

¶37

Learned Public Prosecutor was directed to ascertain the correctness of the representation made. After getting instructions from the investigating officer, it is reported that the spouses are now living under the same roof.

¶38

Having regard to the fact that the crime registered which led to the indictment of petitioners 1 and 2 has arisen from the matrimonial disputes of the spouses, 1^st petitioner and the 3^rd petitioner, and now they have settled their disputes, I find, continuation of the criminal proceedings against the accused will not be conducive to justice. The offence arising from matrimonial cruelty can be treated as personal affecting the wife, the aggrieved person, and not the general public at large. Further more, if

¶39

Crl.M.C.No.3063 of 2012

¶40

:: 3 ::

¶41

prosecution proceedings are continued, in view of the settlement effected by the parties, there is remote chance of any conviction against any of the accused for the offence imputed. At best, such continuation may result only in wastage of precious time of the court.

¶42

Taking into account all these aspects, criminal proceedings against petitioners 1 and 2, the accused in C.C.No.260 of 2011 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thrissur are quashed invoking the inherent powers of this court under Section 482 of the Code .

¶43

Crl.M.C is disposed of as above.

¶44

sk/-

¶45

//true copy//

Dr.Bimal v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr.Bimal v. the 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

K.Muhammed Musthafa Vs Saifunneessa

Shajahan Vs State of Kerala

Stanley @ Unni Vs State of Kerala

V.S.Jeevakumar Vs the Inspector of Factories & Boilers Gr

Vijesh Vs State of Kerala

Sabu T.Varghese Vs Sub Inspector of Police, Puthencruz Police Station