High Court of Kerala quashed proceedings and acquitted appellant in criminal revision petition after wife's counsel filed settlement affidavit. Court relied on Supreme Court precedent to accord with matrimonial dispute quashing.
Judgments of courts below quashed; petition allowed; petitioner acquitted of offences charged.
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.SIRI JAGAN
MONDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2012/7TH KARTHIKA 1934
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1377 of 2007
CRA.192/2004 of ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT (ADHOC), PALAKKAD CC.202/1999 of C.J.M.PALAKKAD
REVISION PETITIONER(S)/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:
UNNIKRISHNAN S/O. KRISHNAN, CANAL ROAD, OLAVAKKODE PALAKKAD.
BY ADV. SRI.RAJESH SIVARAMANKUTTY
COMPLAINANT(S)/COMPLAINANT - STATE:
STATE OF KERALA THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM.
2. M. SARALA, D/O. GOPINATHA KURUP, AGED 50 YEARS, 'ASWATHY', PERUMIDIYOOR, PATTAMBI, PALAKKAR DISTRICT.
ADDL. R2 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER OON CRL.M.A.NO. 7666/2012 DATED 29.10.2012.
PU BLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. BIJU MEENATTOOR. SUPPL 2 BY ADV. SRI.K.P.BALAGOPAL
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29-10-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
S. Siri Jagan, J.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Crl. R.P. No. 1377 of 2007
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 29th day of October, 2012.
O R D E R
The petitioner is the accused in C.C.No. 202/1999 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Palakkad. The petitioner was prosecuted for offences punishable under Sections 448, 498-B and 506(ii) of the Indian Penal Code, at the instance of his wife who got impleaded herself as a respondent in this Criminal R.P. The petitioner was convicted under Sections 498-A and 506(ii) of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner filed Crl. A. No. 192/2004, which was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-I, Palakkad. The petitioner is challenging the said judgments.
Crl. R.P. No. 1377 of 2007 -: 2 :-
offences charged against the petitioner arose from matrimonial disputes, which are purely personal. Now that the parties have compromised the matter between themselves, I am of opinion that it will be unfair and contrary to the interest of justice to continue the criminal proceedings against the petitioner.
The Criminal R.P. is disposed of as above.
Tds/
[True copy]
P.S to Judge.
3 issues framed by the court
Whether criminal proceedings for matrimonial offences should be quashed after amicable settlement between husband and wife.
Whether powers under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code allow acquittal of the accused due to compromise.
Whether Section 498-B IPC offences charged against a husband can be quashed post-settlement.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Gian Singh v. State of PunjabRelied on¶22
State of Punjab, 2012 (4) KLT 108 (S.C)
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Unnikrishnan S/O. Krishnan
State of Kerala
M. Sarala
S. Siri Jagan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
