Allowed

Trustine George Jacob v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC19 Jan 2016Crl.MC/134/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Writ/Misc. Crl. No. 134 of 2016, the Court quashed criminal proceedings against five accused in a matrimonial dispute upon finding a genuine amicable settlement by the parties, holding that continuance of the trial would serve no purpose.

What did the court decide?

The prosecution in S.C.No.241/2014 was quashed under Section 482 CrPC. Accused released from prosecution. Bail bond discharged.

Trustine George Jacob Vs State of Kerala — Matrimonial and Divorce | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.UBAID

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF JANUARY 2016/29TH POUSHA, 1937

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 134 of 2016 ()

¶6

SC 241/2014 of PRINCIPAL SESSIONS COURT, ERNAKULAM CRIME NO. 678/2011 OF MUVATTUPUZHA POLICE STATION , ERNAKULAM

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED 1 TO 5:

¶8

1. TRUSTINE GEORGE JACOB, AGED 33 YEARS

¶9

S/O.V.V.CHACKO, KALAPPILLIL HOUSE, NORTH PIRAMADOM.P.O.,

¶10

MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM-686 667.

¶11

2. V.V.CHACKO, AGED 69 YEARS

¶12

KALAPPILLIL HOUSE, NORTH PIRAMADOM.P.O.,

¶13

MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM-686 667.

¶14

3. ALEYAMMA CHACKO, AGED 64 YEARS

¶15

KALAPPILLIL HOUSE, NORTH PIRAMADOM.P.O.,

¶16

MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM-686 667.

¶17

4. TINA MARY JACOB, AGED 32 YEARS

¶18

W/O.SANJU KURIAN, NANCHIRA HOUSE

¶19

AIKKARANADU NORTH VILLAGE, MATTAM KARA, KADAMATTOM.P.O.,

¶20

KOLENCHERY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.682 311.

¶21

5. TINU SARA JACOB AGED 28 YEARS

¶22

W/O.JITHU MATHEW, ERAPPAMTHADATHIL HOUSE,

¶23

EDAYAR.P.O. KOOTHATTUKULAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-686 662.

¶24

BY ADV. SRI.M.S.UNNIKRISHNAN

¶25

RESPONDENT(S)/STATE & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:

¶26

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

¶27

2. ANU SUSAN SAM, AGED 33 YEARS D/O.V.K.SAMUEL, VANNIRIKKALLUNKAL HOUSE MULAVOOR VILLAGE, MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM-686 673.

¶28

R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.JIPU P. THOMAS R2 BY ADV. SRI.GEO PAUL

¶29

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19-012016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶30

Crl.MC.No. 134 of 2016 ()

¶31

APPENDIX

¶32

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶33

ANNEXURE 1- CERTIFIED COPY OF F.I.R IN CRIME NO.678 OF 2011 OF MUVATTUPUZHA POLICE STATION.

¶34

ANNEXURE 2- CERTIFIED COPY OF CHARGE IN S.C.NO.241 OF 2014 ON THE FILES OF SESSIONS COURT, ERNAKULAM.

¶35

ANNEXURE 3- AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶36

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE

STK

P.UBAID, J.

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

¶42

Crl.M.C.No.134 of 2016

¶43

============================ Dated this the 19^th day of January, 2016

¶44

ORDER

¶45

The petitioners herein are the five accused in S.C.No.241 of 2014 of the Principal Sessions Court, Ernakulam. 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 294(b), 323, 341, 406, 498A and 506(ii) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, and Section 3(1)(X) of SC/ST (PA) Act on the complaint of one Anu Susan Sam, 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.

¶46

In so many decisions, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that even in cases involving non-compoundable offences,

¶47

Crl.M.C.No.134 of 2016 2

¶48

the High Court can quash the prosecution in pending proceedings, if the parties have really settled the whole dispute amicably out of court, and continuance of the 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. 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.

¶49

The victim's affidavit shows that the whole matrimonial dispute stands resolved forever. It is submitted that the parties have parted ways in terms of the settlement, and the claims of the victim also stand settled. It is really strange that the police has brought final report under Section 3(1)(X) of SC/ST Act also in this case. It is not known what is the relevancy of such a prosecution in a dispute in matrimony. This must be a typical case of misuse of the provisions of the SC/ST Act. Anyway, the parties have come to terms amicably,

¶50

Crl.M.C.No.134 of 2016 3

¶51

and the whole issue between them stands resolved forever. It is appropriate that the prosecution be quashed.

¶52

In the result, this petition is allowed. The prosecution against the petitioners herein in S.C.No.241 of 2014 of the Principal Sessions Court, Ernakulam 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.

¶53

Sd/- P.UBAID JUDGE

¶54

rkj

¶55

//TRUE COPY//

¶56

P.A. TO JUDGE

Trustine George Jacob v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Trustine George Jacob 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

Sali Muhammed Vs Haseena K.

Saifudeen Vs State of Kerala

Abdulsalam Vs State of Kerala

Sudheesh Vs State of Kerala

Biju Vs State of Kerala

Dr. Arun Mathew Vs State of Kerala