Disposed

Anitha P. v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC23 Feb 2016Crl.MC/481/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal miscellaneous case regarding offences under sections 324 and 307 IPC arising from a matrimonial dispute, the High Court noted that while parties alleged a settlement, the court could not endorse it due to the serious allegations. It directed the Sessions Court to dispose of the case expeditiously taking note of the settlement.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Sessions Court to take the case out of turn and dispose of it expeditiously taking note of the settlement between parties.

Anitha P. 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 B.KEMAL PASHA

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF FEBRUARY 2016/4TH PHALGUNA, 1937

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 481 of 2016 ()

¶6

SC. NO.538/2012 OF ASSISTANT SESSIONS COURT, KANNUR. CRIME NO. 1536/2011 OF KANNUR TOWN POLICE STATION, KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶7

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

¶8

ANITHA P., D/O. LATE KUMARAN, AGED 48 YEARS, POOTHATTA HOUSE, KATTAMPALLI P.O., CHIRAKKAL AMSOM, KANNUR TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.M.S.VINEETH.

¶10

RESPONDENTS/STATE & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:

¶11

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM, THROUGH S.H.O KANNUR TOWN POLICE STATION, KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶12

2. MURALI. S., S/O. SIVAN PILLAI,

¶13

AGED 61 YEARS, 'MURALIKA', MUDIPPURA, MANNADY P.O, MANNADY VILLAGE, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.

¶14

R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.P. MAYA. R2 BY ADV. SRI.V.A.SATHEESH.

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23-02-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

rs.

¶17

Crl.MC.No. 481 of 2016

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:-

¶20

ANNEXURE A1	TRUE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO. 1536/2001 OF KANNUR TOWN POLICE STATION.
ANNEXURE A2	TRUE COPY OF THE CHARGE SHEET IN S.C NO. 538/2012 ON THE FILE OF ASSISTANT SESSIONS COURT, KANNUR.
ANNEXURE A3	TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT EXECUTED BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND RESPONDENT NO.2 DATED 17/10/2013.
ANNEXURE A4	TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN MC. NO.1/2016 ON THE FILE OF FAMILY COURT, KANNUR DATED 01/01/2016.
ANNEXURE A5	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT IN CRL.MC. NO.479/2016 DATED 27/01/2016.

¶21

RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES:- NIL.

//TRUE COPY//

P.S. TO JUDGE

rs.

B. KEMAL PASHA, J.

¶26

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

¶27

CRL.M.C. No. 481 of 2016

¶28

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

¶29

Dated this the 23^rd day of February, 2016

¶30

O R D E R

¶31

The petitioner is the accused in S.C.No.538 of

¶32

2012 of the Assistant Sessions Court, Kannur, which has

¶33

arisen from Crime No.1536 of 2011 of the Kannur Town Police Station, for the offences under Sections 324 and 307 IPC.

¶34

According to the petitioner, the matter has been amicably settled between the petitioner and the defacto complainant, who is the 2^nd respondent herein. The petitioner was allegedly the wife of the 2^nd respondent. At the same time, the 2^nd respondent has a contention that they were not legally wedded. There were several other matrimonial disputes between the petitioner and the 2^nd respondent. All the other matrimonial disputes were settled. There was a case against the 2^nd respondent for the offence

¶35

CRL.M.C.No. 481 of 2016

¶36

-: 2 :-

¶37

under Section 498A IPC. The same was also settled.

¶38

The 2^nd respondent has filed an affidavit affirming

¶39

that the matter has been amicably settled between him and the petitioner and he has no complaints against the petitioner. Whatever it is, on going through the seriousness of the allegations against the petitioner and the seriousness of the offences involved, this Court is not in a position to accept and endorse the settlement arrived at between the parties. At the same time, the court below can take note of the settlement between the parties. The court below is directed to take the case out of turn and dispose it of as expeditiously as possible, by taking note of the settlement arrived at between the parties in all the cases including the present case.

¶40

In the result, this Crl.M.C. is disposed of accordingly.

¶41

Sd/- B.KEMAL PASHA, JUDGE.

¶42

DSV/23/2/16 // True Copy // P.A. To Judge

Anitha P. v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anitha P. 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

Pradeep Vs State of Kerala

Liju Vs State of Kerala

K.Rajin Vs State of Kerala

Arun @ Manish Vs Arun Prathapan

Franklin Vs State of Kerala

Pranesh K. Vs State of Kerala