Allowed

Binoy Mohan v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC16 Jul 2018Crl.MC/2877/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal miscellaneous case sought quashing of proceedings in C.C.No. 1169/2017. The court notes that the petitioners obtained a judicial decree dissolving the marriage under Section 13(B) of the Hindu Marriage Act. The High Court invoked its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Misc. Case is allowed and the proceedings in C.C.No. 1169/2017 are quashed.

Binoy Mohan Vs the State of Kerala — Matrimonial and Divorce | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS

¶4

MONDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF JULY 2018 / 25TH ASHADHA, 1940

¶5

CRL.MC.NO. 2877 OF 2018

¶6

IN CC 1169/2017 OF J.M.F.C.-I, KANNUR. CRIME NO. 61/2017 OF KANNUR TOWN, KANNUR

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED NOS. 1 TO 4

¶8

1 BINOY MOHAN AGED 28 YEARS, S/O. MOHANDAS PRASAD, RESIDING AT BINDU BHAVAN,31/1113, PARAKKUDI LANE, PETTAH P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PIN - 695 024.

¶9

2 MOHANDAS PRASAD, AGED 55 YEARS, S/O. PRASAD, BINDU BHAVAN,31/1113, PARAKKUDI LANE, PETTAH P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PIN - 695 024. PRESENTLY RESIDING AT 222 CARTERET, DR. FORT MIC MURRAY, ALBERTA, CANADA, T 9K 2V7.

¶10

3 BINDU MOHANDAS, AGED 50 YEARS, W/O. MOHANDAS PRASAD, RESIDING AT BINDU BHAVAN,31/1113, PARAKKUDI LANE, PETTAH P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PIN - 695 024.

¶11

4 DR. V JAYAPAL, S/O. VIDHYADHARAN, AGED 60 YEARS, RESIDING AT JAYADEEPAM, MAJARAJA GARDEN, KAWADIAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 003.

¶12

BY ADV.SRI.A.JANI(KOLLAM).

¶13

RESPONDENT(S)/STATE AND DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:

¶14

1. THE STATE OF KERALA

¶15

REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 682 031,(S.I OF POLICE, KANNUR TOWN POLICE STATION , KANNUR).

¶16

2. REJITHA P,

¶17

AGED 49 YEARS, W/O. RAJAN, RESIDING AT SREE ADITYA NILAYAM, EDA CHOWA, KANNUR. 670 007.

¶18

3. ANJANA RAJAN, AGED 27 YEARS, D/O. RAJAN, RESIDING AT SREE ADITYA NILAYAM, EDA CHOWA, KANNUR.

¶19

R2&3 BY ADV. SRI.G.SIVASANKAR

¶20

R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR T.R.RENJITH.

¶21

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16-07-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

DXY

¶23

CRL.MC.NO. 2877 OF 2018 ()

¶24

APPENDIX

¶25

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶26

ANNEXURE A1	CERTIFIED COPY OF COMPLAINT DATED 14/01/2017 SUBMITTED BY THIRD RESPONDENT.
ANNEXURE A2	CERTIFIED COPY OF F.I.R NO. 61/2017 OF KANNUR TOWN POLICE STATION.
ANNEXURE A3	CERTIFIED COPY OF FINAL REPORT IN ANNEXURE A1 CASE.
ANNEXURE A4	TRUE COPY OF JOINT PETITION IN O.P NO: 894 OF 2017 BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT, KANNUR.
ANNEXURE A5	ORIGINAL OF THE NOTARIZED AFFIDAVIT DATED 19/03/2018 SWORN IN BY THIRD RESPONDENT.
ANNEXURE A6	ORIGINAL OF NOTARIZED AFFIDAVIT DATED 19/03/2018 SWORN IN BY SECOND RESPONDENT.

¶27

RESPONDENT(S)'EXHIBITS: NIL

\TRUE COPY\

PA TO JUDGE

DXY

SUNIL THOMAS, J

Crl.M.C.No. 2877 of 2018

¶33

Dated this the 16^th day of July, 2018

¶34

O R D E R

¶35

The 1^st petitioner is the son of the 2^nd and 3^rd petitioners. The 4^th petitioner is the uncle of the 1^st petitioner. 1^st petitioner married the de facto complainant who is the 3^rd respondent herein. The 2^nd respondent is the mother of the 3^rd respondent.

¶36

The matrimonial relationship between the 1^st petitioner and the 3^rd respondent was not successful and failure to reconcile among themselves resulted in the filing of Anx.A1 complaint. Crime was registered thereupon as crime No. 61/2017 of Kannur Town Police Station. After investigation Anx.A3, final report was filed and is pending as C.C.No. 1169/2017, Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Kannur.

¶37

According to the petitioners, they have discussed the issue with the mediators at the Mediation Sub Centre, Kannur and settlement was arrived at. Accordingly, an application for

¶38

Crl.M.C.No. 2877 of 2018

¶39

::2::-

¶40

dissolution of marriage under Section 13(B) of the Hindu Marriage Act was preferred. It was allowed and the matrimonial relationship was brought to an end.

¶41

Contending that in the light of the above settlement, which is also evident by Anxs. A5 and A6 affidavit affirmed by the 2^nd and 3^rd respondents, petitioners sought for quashing the proceedings. The learned Public Prosecutor on instruction submitted that instructions has been received regarding the settlement.

¶42

Having considered these facts, I am inclined to invoke the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash the criminal proceedings.

¶43

Accordingly, the Crl.M.C is allowed and all further proceedings in C.C.No. 1169/2017, Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Kannur, stand quashed.

¶44

SD/- SUNIL THOMAS, JUDGE

¶45

\True Copy\ PA to Judge

¶46

Dxy

Binoy Mohan v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Binoy Mohan v. the 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

Sarath M.S Vs Sub Inspector of Police

Muhammed Juraij Vs State of Kerala

Mathew Vs State of Kerala

Illiyas @ Riyas Vs State of Kerala

Arundev Vs State of Kerala

Aswin Vs Si of Police, Ernakulam Town North Police Station