Allowed

Anoop v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC20 May 2014Crl.MC/2442/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a petition to quash proceedings against four accused, their husband and wife, in a matrimonial dispute involving allegations of cruelty, obscenity, and criminal intimidation. The court noted that all grievances were settled and the complainant opposed no further prosecution, finding no benefit in continuing the trial.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Miscellaneous Case No. 1942/2013 pending before JFCM-I, Chengannur is quashed and the FIR is noted as pending.

Anoop Vs State of Kerala — Matrimonial and Divorce | Kerala HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.HARIPRASAD

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF MAY 2014/30TH VAISAKHA, 1936

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 2442 of 2014 ()

¶6

--------------------------CC.NO.1942/2013 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT -I, CHENGANNUR CRIME NO. 1223/2012 OF CHENGANNOOR POLICE STATION ,ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT

¶7

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 TO 4:-

¶8

1. ANOOP, AGED 34 YEARS, S/O.SUKUMARAN, THETTANGIRIYIL HOUSE, MARIA THURUTHU P.O., KUDAYAMBADI, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.

¶9

2. LAILA, AGED 61 YEARS, W/O.SUKUMARAN, THETTANGIRIYIL HOUSE, MARIA THURUTHU P.O., KUDAYAMBADI, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.

¶10

3. ANU, AGED 31 YEARS, S/O.SUKUMARAN, THETTANGIRIYIL HOUSE, MARIA THURUTHU P.O., KUDAYAMBADI, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.

¶11

4. SUKUMARAN, AGED 66 YEARS, S/O.KUTTAPPAN, THETTANGIRIYIL HOUSE, MARIA THURUTHU P.O., KUDAYAMBADI, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.

¶12

BY ADVS.SRI.ABRAHAM P.GEORGE SRI.K.VINODKUMAR SMT.M.SANTHY

¶13

RESPONDENTS/STATE & DE-FACTO COMPLAINANT:-

¶14

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.PIN-682 031

¶15

2. AISWARYA,AGED 29 YEARS, D/O.MOHANAN, PATTANGATTIL KIZHAKKE CHERUVIL HOUSE, AREEKARA, MULAKKUZHA VILLAGE, CHENGANNOOR TALUK, NOW RESIDING AT C/O.VAZHAKKALAYIL JOY, UNICHIRA, EDAPPILLY, THRIKKAKARA P.O.,PIN- 682 021

¶16

R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.C.K.JAYAKUMAR R2 BY ADV. SRI.IEANS C. CHAMAKKALA

¶17

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20-05-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

sts

¶19

Crl.MC.No. 2442 of 2014 ()

¶20

APPENDIX

¶21

PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES:

¶22

ANNEX A1. THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.1223/2012 OF CHENGANNOOR POLICE STATION. ANNEX A2. THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT/CHARGE IN C.C.NO.1942/2013 IN THE FILE OF JFCM I, CHENGANNOOR.

¶23

RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES: NIL

/TRUE COPY/

P.A.TO.JUDGE

sts

A.HARIPRASAD.J.

Crl.M.C. No.2442 of 2014

¶29

Dated this the 20^th day of May, 2014

¶30

ORDER

¶31

Petitioners are accused 1 to 4 in C.C.No.1942 of 2013

¶32

pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Chengannur. The offences alleged against them are punishable under sections 498(A), 294(b) and 506(ii) r/w section 34 IPC. First petitioner is the husband of the second respondent. On 28.1.2007 the first petitioner tied a nuptial knot to the second respondent. Their matrimony was not very happy as the petitioners harassed the second respondent demanding money and ornaments

¶33

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the defacto complainant/second respondent. Heard the learned Public Prosecutor also.

¶34

It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the accused persons and the second respondent that the husband and wife settled the matter. Grievances of the wife against relatives of the husband were also settled. An affidavit is filed by the second respondent (defacto complainant) stating that she has no grievance subsisting against the accused persons and she has no objection in allowing the prayers in the petition. Considering the nature of allegation and the relationship between the parties, I find no benefit derived by any of the parties by further prosecuting the crime. In the result the petition is allowed. Annexure-A2 F I R pending in

¶35

Crl.M.C. No.2442 of 2014

¶36

¶37

C.C.No.1942 of 2013 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate

¶38

Court-I, Chengannur is hereby quashed.

¶39

Sd/-

¶40

A.HARIPRASAD,JUDGE

¶41

dlk

Anoop v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anoop 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

Sanal Kumar Vs State of Kerala

Abdu Jaleel Vs State of Kerala

Gireeshkumar Vs State of Kerala

T.R.Krishna Kumar Vs Anamika

Jayamohan Vs Fr. Dr. Abraham Thalothil

Anilkumar @ Karthikeyan Vs State of Kerala