Allowed

Jibi Joseph @ George v. Jinu @ Marry

Kerala HC4 Sept 2015Crl.MC/5950/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed a criminal miscellaneous petition seeking to quash prosecution under Section 482 CrPC. Based on the de facto complainant's affidavit confirming amicable settlement, divorce, and resolution of grievances, the court found no need for further proceedings and quashed the case.

What did the court decide?

The prosecution against the petitioners in C.C.No.439/2015 stands quashed under Section 482 CrPC; they are released from prosecution and bail bonds discharged.

Jibi Joseph @ George Vs Jinu @ Marry — Domestic Violence | Kerala HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.UBAID

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2015/13RD BHADRA, 1937

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 5950 of 2015 ()

¶6

CC 439/2015 of JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-I, PERINTHALMANNA CRIME NO. 1588/2014 OF PERINTHALMANNA POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT

¶7

===================

¶8

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED:

¶9

1. JIBI JOSEPH @ GEORGE, AGED 31 YEARS S/O. JOSEPH

¶10

2. JOSEPH, AGED 76 YEARS, S/O. OUSEPH

¶11

3. THANKAMMA, W/O. JOSEPH, AGED 58 YEARS

¶12

4. BIBIN JOSEPH, S/O. JOSEPH

¶13

( ALL ARE RESIDING AT UPPU VEETIL, THAZHEKODE, PERINTHALMANNA MALAPPURAM DISTRICT)

¶14

BY ADV. SRI.P.SAMSUDIN

¶15

RESPONDENTS/DE-FACTO COMPLAINANT AND STATE:

¶16

1. JINU @ MARRY, AGED 27 YEARS, D/O. SCARIA KOCHUPURAKKAL HOUSE, PULAMANTHOLE-679323 PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT

¶17

2. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM – 682 031 (IN CRIME NO. 1588/2014 OF PERINTHALMANNA POLICE STATION IN MALAPPURAM DISTRICT)

¶18

R1 BY ADV. SRI.K.C.ANTONY MATHEW R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. SHEEBA M.T.

¶19

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04-09-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

Crl.M.C.No.5950/2015

¶21

APPENDIX

¶22

PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS

¶23

ANNEXURE A1 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO.1588/2014 OF PERINTHALMANNA POLICE STATION ANNEXUJRE A2 THE AFFIDAVIT DATED 24.08.2015 SWORN IN BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT

¶24

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS

NIL

TRUE COPY

P.A. TO JUDGE

P. UBAID, J.

Crl.M.C. No.5950 of 2015

¶31

Dated this the 4^th day of September, 2015

¶32

O R D E R

¶33

The petitioners herein are the accused in C.C.No.439/2015 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Perinthalmanna. They seek orders quashing the prosecution on the ground of amicable settlement of the whole dispute between them and the de facto complainant. Crime in this case was registered under Sections 498A and 406 read with 34 IPC on the complaint of one Jinu @ Marry, who is the 1^st respondent in this proceeding brought under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. She has filed affidavit to the effect that she has settled the whole dispute with the accused and she has no grievance or complaint now. The victim's affidavit shows that the whole dispute stands resolved forever, and she has obtained divorce by decree. She has also obtained whatever benefits and things due from her husband, on divorce. In such a situation, it is appropriate that the whole prosecution be quashed. Otherwise, continuance of prosecution may cause embarrassment to both the parties.

¶34

In so many decisions, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that even in cases involving non-compoundable offences, the High Court can quash the prosecution in pending proceedings, if

¶35

¶36

Crl.M.C. No.5950 of 2015

¶37

the parties have really settled the whole dispute amicably out of court, and continuance of further proceedings will not serve any purpose in such a circumstance of amicable settlement. Here, I find a real and genuine case of settlement between the parties. This is not a case involving any public interest or public issue. The parties have come to terms amicably on the intervention of persons acceptable to both sides, and I am satisfied that the parties are now on quite cordial terms. In such a situation, continuance of the prosecution will not serve any purpose other than wasting the precious time of the court. No doubt, nobody will support the prosecution in such a situation, if the case goes to trial.

¶38

In the result, this petition is allowed. The prosecution against the petitioners herein in C.C.No.439/2015 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Perinthalmanna will stand quashed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Accordingly, the petitioners will stand released from prosecution and the bail bond, if any, executed by them will stand discharged.

¶39

Sd/-

¶40

P. UBAID, JUDGE

¶41

Jibi Joseph @ George v. Jinu @ Marry

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jibi Joseph @ George v. Jinu @ Marry

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

P.Aharidasan Vs State of Kerala

Dinesh Vs State of Kerala

Gopakumar @ Kannan Vs State of Kerala

G.Sreepada Bhat Vs State of Kerala

Mohammed Ismail Vs State of Kerala

K.T.Abdul Samad Vs State of Kerala