Allowed

Dr. Arun Mathew v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC19 Jan 2016Crl.MC/302/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed a plea to quash prosecution under Section 482 CrPC in a matrimonial case involving Sections 498A and 405 IPC. Relying on settled Supreme Court precedents, the Court held that since the parties had genuinely settled the dispute and no public interest was involved, continuing the trial would waste judicial time. The prosecution was accordingly quashed.

What did the court decide?

The prosecution against the petitioners in C.C. No.2037/2015 was quashed; they stand released and any bail bond is discharged.

Dr. Arun Mathew 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. 302 of 2016

¶6

CC 2037/2015 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, KAKKANAD (TEMPORARY) CRIME NO. 819/2013 OF THRIKKAKARA POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM

¶7

PETITIONERS-ACCUSED NOS. 1 & 2:

¶8

1. DR. ARUN MATHEW, AGED 29 YEARS, S/O. MATHEW, CHERADICKAL VEEDU, K.K.ROAD, CHEMBUMUKKU KARA, VAZHAKKALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN-682030.

¶9

2. C.J.MATHEW, AGED 64 YEARS, CHERADICKAL VEEDU, K.K.ROAD, CHEMBUMUKKU KARA, VAZHAKKALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN-682030.

¶10

BY ADVS.SRI.C.Y.VINOD KUMAR SMT.SHERIN A.RAHIM

¶11

RESPONDENTS-STATE & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:

¶12

1. STATE OF KERALA, (REP. BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, THRIKKAKARA POLICE STATION-CR.NO.819/2013 OF THRIKKAKARA POLICE STATION), REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶13

2. SHINY DEVASSY, AGED 27 YEARS, D/O. DEVASSY, CHAKKALACKAL VEETTIL, MURINGOOR DESOM, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN-680683.

¶14

R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.JIPU P.THOMAS R2 BY ADV. SRI.P.S.PRASOBH

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19-01-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

¶17

Crl.MC.No. 302 of 2016

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES

¶20

ANNEXURE A1- FINAL REPORT IN C.C.NO. 2037/2015 (CR.NO. 819/2013 OF THRIKKAKARA POLICE STATION), ON THE FILE OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE'S COURT, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM.

¶21

ANNEXURE A2- A TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT DATED 05-01-16 SWORN BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT.

¶22

RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES

NIL.

/ TRUE COPY /

P.S. TO JUDGE

P.UBAID, J.

--------------------------------------Crl.M.C No.302 of 2016 ---------------------------------------

¶29

Dated this the 19^th day of January, 2016

¶30

O R D E R

¶31

The petitioners herein are the two accused in C.C No.2037/2015 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kakkanad. 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, 405, 406 and 294(b) of the Indian Penal Code on the complaint of one Shiny Devassy who is the second 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 the parties have really settled the whole dispute amicably out of court, and continuance of the further prosecution will not serve any purpose in such a circumstance of amicable settlement. Here, I find a real and genuine case of settlement

¶33

¶34

Crl.M.C No.302 of 2016

¶35

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. The victim's affidavit shows that the whole matrimonial dispute stands resolved forever, and the parties have parted ways in terms of the settlement. The claims also stand settled. In such a situation, it is appropriate that the prosecution be quashed.

¶36

In the result, this petition is allowed. The prosecution against the petitioners herein in C.C No.2037/2015 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kakkanad 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.

¶37

Sd/P.UBAID JUDGE

¶38

//True Copy//

¶39

Dr. Arun Mathew v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr. Arun Mathew 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

Trustine George Jacob Vs State of Kerala