Allowed

Sudheesh v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC19 Jan 2016Crl.MC/99/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala quashed the criminal prosecution against three accused persons in a domestic matter under Section 482 CrPC. Finding a genuine amicable settlement between the accused and the complainant, the court held that continuing the trial would serve no purpose.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed; prosecution in C.C.No.466 of 2015 quashed; petitioners released; bail bond discharged.

Sudheesh 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. 99 of 2016 ()

¶6

CC 466/2015 of J.M.F.C.-I, KOCHI

¶7

CRIME NO. 1315/2014 OF MARADU POLICE STATION , ERNAKULAM

¶8

PETITIONER(S):

¶9

1. SUDHEESH, S/O.SUDHAKARAN

¶10

AGED 27, THARAYIL HOUSE, KALATHARA BHAGAM

¶11

MARADU KARA, MARADU VILLAGE, MARADU P.O,

¶12

KANAYANOOR TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶13

2. SUDHAKARAN, S/O.PRABHAKARAN

¶14

AGED 50, THARAYIL HOUSE, KALATHARA BHAGAM

¶15

MARADU KARA, MARADU VILLAGE, MARADU P.O

¶16

KANAYANOOR TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶17

3. ASHA, W/O.SUDHAKARAN

¶18

THARAYIL HOUSE, KALATHARA BHAGAM, MARADU KARA,

¶19

MARADU VILLAGE, MARADU P.O, KANAYANOOR TALUK

¶20

ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶21

BY ADV. SRI.SHERRY J. THOMAS

¶22

RESPONDENT(S):

¶23

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

¶24

2. RINI JOHN, D/O.JOHN

¶25

AGED 26, KOLLUPARAMBIL HOUSE, VAKAYIL ROAD MARADU KARA, MARADU VILLAGE, MARADU P.O KANAYANOOR TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682 034.

¶26

R2 BY ADV. SRI.SANAL P. RAJ

¶27

R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.SHEEBA M.T.

¶28

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

¶29

Crl.MC.No. 99 of 2016 ()

¶30

APPENDIX

¶31

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶32

A1 - THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 23.08.2014

¶33

A2 - THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR DATED 01.9.2014

¶34

A3 - THE TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT DATED 27.10.2014

¶35

A4 - THE TRUE COPY OF THE MEDIATION AGREEMENT FILED BEFORE THE LOWER COURT IN MC 40/2014

¶36

A5 - THE TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 4.07.2015 FOR FINAL SETTLEMENT OF MC 40/2014 BEFORE THE LOWER COURT.

¶37

A6 - AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT.

¶38

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE

STK

P.UBAID, J.

============================ Crl.M.C.No.99 of 2016

¶44

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

¶45

ORDER

¶46

The petitioners herein are the three accused in C.C.No.466 of 2015 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate CourtI, Kochi. They seek orders quashing the prosecution on the ground of amicable settlement of the whole dispute between them and the defacto complainant. Crime in this case was registered under Sections 498(A) and 406 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code the complaint of one Rini John, 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.

¶47

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

¶48

Crl.M.C.No.99 of 2016 2

¶49

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.

¶50

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 made out of Court, and the claims also stand settled. In such a situation, it is appropriate that the prosecution be quashed.

¶51

In the result, this petition is allowed. The prosecution against the petitioners herein in C.C.No.466 of 2015 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Kochi will stand quashed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Accordingly, the petitioners will stand released from

¶52

Crl.M.C.No.99 of 2016 3

¶53

prosecution, and the bail bond, if any, executed by them will stand discharged.

¶54

Sd/- P.UBAID JUDGE

¶55

rkj

¶56

//TRUE COPY//

¶57

P.A. TO JUDGE

Sudheesh v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sudheesh 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

Biju Vs State of Kerala

Trustine George Jacob Vs State of Kerala

Dr. Arun Mathew Vs State of Kerala