Allowed

Biju Usman v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC3 Dec 2015Crl.MC/7351/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed a petition under Section 482 CrPC to quash prosecution in a matrimonial dispute under IPC Sections 498-A and 34. Finding a genuine settlement between the accused and the complainant, with the victim joining her husband, the Court ordered the quashing of proceedings and release of the accused.

What did the court decide?

Prosecution in C.C.No.718 of 2012 quashed; petitioners released from prosecution; bail bond discharged.

Biju Usman Vs State of Kerala — Matrimonial and Divorce | Kerala HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.UBAID

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF DECEMBER 2015/12TH AGRAHAYANA, 1937

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 7351 of 2015 ()

¶6

AGAINST CC no.718/2012 of JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, KAYAMKULAM CRIME NO. 135/2011 OF KAYAMKULAM POLICE STATION , ALAPPUZHA

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED 1 & 2 :

¶8

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

¶9

1. BIJU USMAN, AGED 40 YEARS, S/O.USMANKUTTY, RESIDING AT CHANDANAVELIL, PERINGALA, KAYAMKULAM, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN-690 502.

¶10

2. SUBAIDA, AGED 69 YEARS, W/O.USMANKUTTY, RESIDING AT CHANDANAVELIL, PERINGALA KAYAMKULAM, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN-690 502.

¶11

BY ADVS.SRI.K.SHAJ SRI.SAJJU.S SRI.RENJIT GEORGE SMT.ANJU MOHAN SRI.S.VISHNU (ARIKKATTIL) SRI.C.IJLAL

¶12

RESPONDENT(S)/STATE AND CW1:

¶13

1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-31.

¶14

2. SHEETHA B., AGED 40 YEARS D/O.KHADEEJA BEEVI, RESIDING AT CHANDANAVELIL PERINGALA, KAYAMKULAM, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT PIN-690 502.

¶15

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. SHEEBA M.T. R2 BY ADV. SRI. SERGI JOSEPH THOMAS

¶16

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03-12-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

¶18

Crl.MC.No. 7351 of 2015 ()

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶21

ANNEXURE A1 : THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE CHARGE SHEET IN CC 718/2012 OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, KAYAMKULAM IN CRIME NO.135/2011 OF KAYAMKULAM POLICE STATION.

¶22

ANNEXURE A2: AN AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT STATING THE SETTLEMENT OF ALL THE DISPUTES.

¶23

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : NIL

/ TRUE COPY /

P.A. TO JUDGE

P.UBAID, J.

============================ Crl.M.C.No.7351 of 2015

¶29

============================ Dated this the 3^rd day of December, 2015

¶30

ORDER

¶31

The petitioners herein are the two accused in C.C.No.718 of 2012 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kayamkulam. 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 Section 498(A) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code on the complaint of one Sheetha B., who is the 2^nd 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.

¶32

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

¶33

Crl.M.C.No.7351 of 2015 2

¶34

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.

¶35

The victim's affidavit shows that the whole matrimonial dispute stands resolved forever. It is submitted from both sides that the victim has joined her husband in matrimony in terms of the settlement arrived at, and that she is now very happy with her husband. In such a situation, it is appropriate that the pending prosecution be quashed.

¶36

In the result, this petition is allowed. The prosecution against the petitioners herein in C.C.No.718 of 2012 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kayamkulam will stand quashed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Accordingly,

¶37

Crl.M.C.No.7351 of 2015 3

¶38

the petitioners will stand released from prosecution, and the bail

¶39

bond, if any, executed by them will stand discharged.

¶40

Sd/- P.UBAID JUDGE

¶41

rkj

¶42

//TRUE COPY//

¶43

P.A. TO JUDGE

Biju Usman v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Biju Usman 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

K.Gangadharan Nair Vs Deputy Superintendent of Police,v.a.C.B

Sainaba Vs Superintendent of Police, Kozhikode Rural

Sumesh Vs State of Kerala

Sujatha Vs Beena Anandan

Rajesh Kumar R. Vs Hridaya Pushpan

Rajeev Vs State of Kerala