Allowed

S.Abdullakunhi v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC1 Nov 2017Crl.MC/6662/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed a criminal miscellaneous petition filed by accused persons facing charges under Section 498A IPC. The court held that the dispute was essentially of a private nature and was settled. Consequently, it was satisfied that prosecuting the petitioners would serve no purpose and quashed the proceedings.

What did the court decide?

All further proceedings arising from Crime No. 862 of 2013 of Bekal Police Station stand quashed.

S.Abdullakunhi Vs State of Kerala — Dowry and Cruelty | Kerala HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF NOVEMBER 2017/10TH KARTHIKA, 1939

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 6662 of 2017 ()

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC 622/2014 of J.M.F.C.-II,HOSDRUG CRIME NO. 862/2013 OF BEKAL POLICE STATION , KASARGOD

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED:

¶8

1. S.ABDULLAKUNHI, AGED 47 YEARS, S/O. MUHAMMED, MAHINABAD HOUSE, PUTHARIYADUKKAM, CHATTANCHAL, THEKKIL VILLAGE, KASARGOD DISTRICT.

¶9

2. AYSHA, AGED 64 YEARS W/o.MUHAMMED MAHINABAD HOUSE, PUTHARIYADUKKAM CHATTANCHAL, THEKKIL VILLAGE KASARAGOD DISTRICT

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.A.ARUNKUMAR

¶11

RESPONDENT(S)/STATE/COMPLAINANT.:

¶12

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031

¶13

2. MAIMOONA.K,

¶14

AGED 37 YEARS, D/O. ABDULLA, R/AT KODIYIL HOUSE, KOTTIKKULAM, P.O BEKAL, HOSDURG TALUK-671315.

¶15

R2 BY ADV. SRI.SUBASH P K R BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR:SRI AMJAD ALI

¶16

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01-11-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

Crl.MC.No. 6662 of 2017 ()

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶20

ANNEXURE A1 A TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO. 862 OF 2013 OF BEKAL POLICE STATION.

¶21

ANNEXURE A2 A TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN TO BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶22

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:NIL

¶23

True Copy / P A to Judge

¶24

SUNIL THOMAS, J.

¶25

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

¶26

Crl.M.C.No.6662 of 2017

¶27

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

¶28

Dated this the 1^st day of November, 2017

¶29

ORDER

¶30

Petitioners are accused in Crime No.862 of 2013 of Bekal Police Station for offences punishable under section 498A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶31

The prosecution alleged that the marriage between the first petitioner and the de facto complainant was solemnized on 08.03.2012. Thereafter, they lived in the house of the first petitioner. The second petitioner is the mother of the first petitioner. It was alleged by the second respondent/de facto complainant that after the marriage, petitioners herein subjected her to matrimonial cruelty in connection with the demand for dowry. Complaint was hence filed and crime was registered. After investigation, final report was filed and the matter is now pending as C.C.No.622 of 2014 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate CourtII, Hosdurg.

¶32

Petitioners have approached this Court contending that the matrimonial disputes existed between the parties leading to other matrimonial proceedings. It was stated that the parties have resolved all their disputes and as per the settlement, de facto complainant was paid all the compensation payable to her. It was

¶33

Crl.M.C.6662/17

¶34

¶35

stated that in M.C.No.286 of 2013, a joint memo was filed by the parties reiterating the settlement. An affidavit has been filed by the petitioners stated to have been affirmed by the second respondent. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the parties are now living separately. Learned Public Prosecutor also asserted that the disputes have been settled and conveyed to the investigating agency. The settlement has also been recorded.

¶36

Having considered the above facts, I am satisfied that the dispute is essentially of private nature. Hence, larger question of public importance do not arise. In the light of the settlement between the parties, evidenced by materials on record, I am inclined to hold that no purpose will be served by prosecuting the petitioner herein.

¶37

In the result, Crl.M.C is allowed. All further proceedings arising from Crime No.862 of 2013 of Bekal Police Station stand quashed.

¶38

Sd/- SUNIL THOMAS Judge

¶39

Sbna/1/11/17

¶40

True Copy / P A to Judge

S.Abdullakunhi v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Abdullakunhi 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

Vinod Vs State of Kerala

Saiju Vs State of Kerala

Unais.K.P Vs State of Kerala

Sherly Baby Vs State of Kerala

Geetha Vs State of Kerala

Rashid C Vs State of Kerala