Quashed

Sharon Prakash v. Athira T.K.

Kerala HC11 Jul 2018Crl.MC/4088/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed criminal proceedings under Section 498A IPC initiated against the appellants. Finding that the matrimonial dispute had been resolved and divorce by mutual consent was granted, the Court invoked Section 482 Cr.P.C to prevent failure of justice.

What did the court decide?

All criminal proceedings in C.C. No.71/2018 under Section 498A IPC against the accused stand quashed.

Sharon Prakash Vs Athira T.K. — Domestic Violence | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF JULY 2018 / 20TH ASHADHA, 1940

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 4088 of 2018

¶6

IN CC 71/2018 of JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE'S COURT-I, CHERTHALA CRIME NO. 1691/2017 OF CHERTHALA POLICE STATION, ALAPPUZHA

¶7

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED:

¶8

1 SHARON PRAKASH, AGED 31 YEARS, S/O. SIVAPRAKASH, SHARON NIVAS, C.M.C.-17, CUTCHERRY P.O., CHERTHALA SOUTH VILLAGE, CHERTHALA TALUK, PIN - 688 524.

¶9

2 SIVAPRAKASH, AGED 64 YEARS, S/O. N.A.RAMAN, SHARON NIVAS, C.M.C.17, CUTCHERRY P.O., CHERTHALA SOUTH VILLAGE, CHERTHALA TALUK, PIN - 688 524.

¶10

3 SHERLY, AGED 56 YEARS, W/O. SIVAPRAKASH, SHARON NIVAS, C.M.C.17, CUTCHERRY P.O., CHERTHALA SOUTH VILLAGE, CHERTHALA TALUK, PIN - 688 524.

¶11

BY ADVS.SRI.GIGIMON ISSAC

¶12

SRI.A.K.JAYAPRAKASH

¶13

RESPONDENTS/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT AND STATE:

¶14

1. ATHIRA T.K., AGED 28 YEARS, D/O. KRISHNANKUTTY, THEKKUMPURAM, PANIYELY P.O., KOMBANADU VILLAGE, KUNNATHNADU TALUK, PIN - 683 546.

¶15

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

¶16

R1 BY ADV. SRI.T.M.RAMAN KARTHA R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. T.R.RENJITH

¶17

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11-07-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

MSP

¶19

Crl.MC.No. 4088 of 2018

¶20

APPENDIX

¶21

PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES:

¶22

ANNEXURE A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO. 1691/2017 OF CHERTHALA POLICE STATION NOW PENDING AS C.C.NO.71/2018 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE'S COURT NO.I, CHERTHALA. ANNEXURE B A TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION FOR DIVORCE ON MUTUAL CONSENT IE; O.P.NO. 375/2018 OF THE FAMILY COURT, MUVATTUPUZHA. ANNEXURE C TRUE COPY OF ORDER IN O.P.NO. 375/2018 OF THE FAMILY COURT, MUVATTUPUZHA.

¶23

RESPONDENTS ANNEXURES:

NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE

MSP

SUNIL THOMAS, J.

=========================== Crl.M.C No.4088 of 2018

¶30

=========================== Dated this the 11^th day of July, 2018

¶31

ORDER

¶32

The petitioners are the accused in C.C.No.71/2018

¶33

for offence punishable under Section 498(A) of I.P.C.

¶34

The matter is now pending before the Judicial First

¶35

Class Magistrate -I, Cherthala.

¶36

The first respondent who married the first petitioner alleged matrimonial cruelty and laid a complaint. Crime was registered as Crime No. 1691 of 2017 of Cherthala Police station. It seems that the matrimonial relationship was strained and several other proceedings were initiated. Pending the proceedings, the disputes are stated to have been resolved between the parties. An affidavit affirmed by the defacto-

¶37

complainant is produced along with Crl.M.C.

¶38

Crl.M.C No.4088 of 2018

¶39

¶40

It is mentioned therein, that an application filed

¶41

for divorce on mutual consent as O.P No.375/2018 was

¶42

allowed by the family court, Muvattupuzha.

¶43

The learned Public Prosecutor, on instructions, submitted that the parties have resolved their dispute. Hence, I am satisfied that the parties have no further grievance against each other. Continuation of the criminal proceedings can only result in failure of justice to both parties. Accordingly I am inclined to invoke the jurisdiction under section 482 of Cr.P.C and to quash the criminal proceedings.

¶44

Crl.M.C is accordingly allowed. All further proceedings in C.C. No.71/2018 of Judicial First Class Magistrate -I, Cherthala stand quashed.

SUNIL THOMAS, JUDGE

Sd/-

ACM

Crl.M.C No.4088 of 2018

¶49

Sharon Prakash v. Athira T.K.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sharon Prakash v. Athira T.K.

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

Marimuthu @ Sreedhar @ Mohammed Ashraf Vs the Inspector of Police

Madhu v. Vs State of Kerala

Remitha Vs State of Kerala

Mohammed Musthafa K. Vs Safiya T.

Sreejith S Vs State of Kerala

P.v.Nandakumar Vs Rajeshwari