Allowed

Joji Jose v. Soniya P.J.

Kerala HC28 Nov 2013Crl.MC/5655/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed a petition under Section 482 CrPC to quash proceedings under Section 498A IPC. Noting that the couple was leading a happy peaceful life, the complainant withdrew her interest, rendering further proceedings futile. The petitioners were discharged.

What did the court decide?

All further proceedings in Crime No.611 of 2013, including the final report, shall be quashed and the petitioners shall be discharged.

Joji Jose Vs Soniya P.J. — Matrimonial and Divorce | Kerala HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2013/7TH AGRAHAYANA, 1935

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 5655 of 2013

¶6

AGAINST IN CMP 937/2013 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT- I, OTTAPPALAM

¶7

CRIME NO. 611/2013 OF OTTAPALAM POLICE STATION , PALAKKAD

¶8

PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED 1 TO 5:

¶9

1. JOJI JOSE, S/O.JOSE, AGED 33 YEARS VELLIKUNNEL VEEDU, MODA POIKA POST

¶10

EDAKKARA (VIA), NILAMBUR.

¶11

2. ROSAMMA JOSE, W/O.LATE JOSE, AGED 69 YEARS VELLIKUNNEL VEEDU, MODA POIKA POST

¶12

EDAKKARA (VIA) NILAMBUR.

¶13

3. SALI GEORGE, W/O.GEORGE

¶14

MANJAPPALLIYIL VEEDU, KIZHAKKETHALA

¶15

KARUVARAKUNDU POST.

¶16

4. SOLLY CHACKO, W/O.CHACKO KUNNUBAKKATH VEEDU, MODA POIKA POST EDAKKARA (VIA) NILAMBUR.

¶17

5. DOLY JOSE, W/O.JOSE VADAPPURAM POST, MANJERY.

¶18

BY ADV. SRI.R.SREEHARI

¶19

RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANTS:

¶20

1. SONIYA P.J., AGED 24 YEARS D/O.P.V.JOSEPH, PURIYOTTU VEEDU PALAPPURAM POST, OTTAPALAM, PIN. 679 103.

¶21

2. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM THROUGH THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE OTTAPALAM POLICE STATION, OTTAPALAM 679 101.

¶22

R1 BY ADV. SRI.K.RAJESH SUKUMARAN R BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶23

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28-11-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶24

Crl.MC.No. 5655 of 2013 ()

¶25

APPENDIX

¶26

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS :-

¶27

ANNX.A1	-	COPY OF COMPLAINT CMP 937/2013 FILED BEFORE THE JFCM COURT-I OTTAPALAM.
ANNX.A2	-	COPY OF FIR IN CRIME NO.611/2013 OF OTTAPALAM POLICE STATION ALONG WITH FI STATEMENT.

¶28

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:- NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE

P. BHAVADASAN, J.

¶33

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

¶34

Crl. M.C. No.5655 of 2013

¶35

Dated this the 28^th day of November, 2013.

¶36

O R D E R

¶37

This is a petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking to have all further proceedings in Crime No.611 of 2013 of Ottapalam Police Station, Palakkad, quashed.

¶38

The petitioners are the accused in Crime No.611 of 2013 of Ottapalam Police Station, who are alleged to have committed offences punishable under Section 498A read with Section 34 IPC.

¶39

It is unnecessary to go into the facts in detail for the simple reason that this petition can be disposed of on a short ground.

¶40

The petitioners have impleaded the defacto complainant as respondent No.1 in this proceeding and the said respondent had entered appearance through a counsel. The counsel so engaged by the 1^st respondent stated that the affidavit filed along with the petition is the one sworn to by the 1^st respondent and that she stands by the statements contained therein.

¶41

¶42

Crl. M.C. No.5655 of 2013

¶43

On going through the affidavit, it is seen that the couple have taken up the residence together and they are leading a happy and peaceful married life. In such circumstances, she points out that she is not interested in continuing the proceedings.

¶44

Taking note of the above circumstances, and the subsequent development and also taking note of the fact that the couple are leading a happy matrimonial life, it is felt that continuance of proceedings will be only an exercise in futility.

¶45

Hence, this petition is allowed. All further proceedings in Crime No.611 of 2013 of Ottapalam Police Station, Palakkad including the final report based on which cognizance of the offence was taken, shall stand quashed and the petitioners shall stand discharged.

¶46

P. BHAVADASAN, JUDGE

¶47

Joji Jose v. Soniya P.J.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Joji Jose v. Soniya P.J.

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

Abhilash T.V. Vs State of Kerala

Jose Binu Vs State of Kerala

Unnikrishnan Vs State of Kerala

Bineesh Vs State of Kerala

Benny John Vs State of Kerala

Anil Sankaran Vs State of Kerala