Allowed

Jasim Jamal v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC2 Nov 2017Crl.MC/7091/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court quashed criminal proceedings initiated under Sections 406, 498(A) IPC against the petitioners. Noting that the parties resolved their disputes, divorced, and settled out of court, the court held that quashing the proceedings was in the interest of justice.

What did the court decide?

Crl.M.C. allowed; all further proceedings in C.C. No. 418/2016 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Chavakkad quashed.

Jasim Jamal Vs State of Kerala — Matrimonial and Divorce | Kerala HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF NOVEMBER 2017/ 11TH KARTHIKA, 1939

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 7091 of 2017 ()

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC 418/2016 of JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, CHAVAKKAD CRIME NO. 1757/2015 OF CHAVAKKAD POLICE STATION, TRISSUR

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED:

¶8

1. JASIM JAMAL, AGED 29 YEARS, S/O. JAMALUDHEEN, PULIKKAL HOUSE, PALLUVAYI DESOM, THYCAUD VILLAGE, CHAVAKKAD THALUK,

¶9

THRISSUR DISTRICT

¶10

2. SUBAIUNEES, AGED 55 YEARS, W/O. JAMALUDHEEN, PULIKKAL HOUSE, PALLUVAYI DESOM, THYCAUD VILLAGE, CHAVAKKAD THALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT

¶11

BY ADV. SRI.RAJIT

¶12

RESPONDENT(S):

¶13

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

¶14

2. AFSA, AGED 20 YEARS, D/O.ABDUL KAREEM, VALLIYAKKATH HOUSE, KARUVANTHALA DESOM, VENKIDUNG VILLAGE, CHAVAKKAD THALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT 680 510.

¶15

R2 BY ADV. SMT.P.M.FAREETHA BANU R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.AMJAD ALI

¶16

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02-11-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

Crl.MC.No. 7091 of 2017 () ---------------------------

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS -----------------------

¶20

ANNEXURE A TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT FILED BY THE CHAVAKKAD POLICE BEFORE THE LEARNED JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, CHAVAKKAD

¶21

ANNEXURE B TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT

¶22

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : NIL -----------------------

/TRUE COPY/

P. A. TO JUDGE

SUNIL THOMAS, J.

Crl. M. C. No. 7091 of 2017

¶28

Dated this the 2^nd day of November, 2017

¶29

O R D E R

¶30

The petitioners are the accused in Crime No.1757/2015 of the Chavakkad Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 406, 498(A) read with 34 IPC. The 1^st petitioner had married the 2^nd respondent. While they were living with the 2^nd petitioner, who is the mother of the 1^st petitioner, the 2^nd respondent de facto complainant laid FI statement, alleging that she was subjected to matrimonial cruelty by the petitioners. It was further alleged that, her gold ornaments were misappropriated by the petitioners. Crime was registered and after investigation, final report was filed. The matter was taken cognizance of and is now pending as C.C. No.418/2016 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Chavakkad.

¶31

Pending the proceedings, the parties are stated to have resolved their disputes. It is stated that they decided to dissolve the marriage and accordingly, the 1^st petitioner has divorced the 2^nd respondent by pronouncing 'talak'. It was further stated that, all the issues between the parties have been settled out of court. Asserting that the 2^nd respondent has no further

¶32

¶33

Crl. M. C. No. 7091 of 2017

¶34

grievance, learned counsel for the 2^nd respondent invited my attention to an affidavit affirmed by the 2^nd respondent as Annexure B. Learned counsel for the petitioners also submitted that the parties have resolved their disputes.

¶35

The learned Public Prosecutor on instructions submitted that the settlement between the parties have been taken note of by the investigating agency through the statement of the de facto complainant.

¶36

Evidently, the dispute arose out of a matrimonial discord. Without the intervention of the criminal court, the parties have now resolved their disputes. Essentially, it is the duty of the court to ensure that the interest of parties is advanced and criminal proceedings that stand in the way have to be quashed in the interest of justice.

¶37

Accordingly, Crl.M.C. is allowed. All further proceedings in C.C. No.418/2016 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Chavakkad stand quashed.

¶38

Sd/-

¶39

SUNIL THOMAS, JUDGE.

¶40

Jasim Jamal v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jasim Jamal 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sherly Baby Vs State of Kerala

Geetha Vs State of Kerala

S.Abdullakunhi Vs State of Kerala

Muhammed Naseef Vs State of Kerala

Sujitha .U Vs State of Kerala

Shameer Vs the State of Kerala