Allowed

P.v.Nandakumar v. Rajeshwari

Kerala HC11 Jul 2018Crl.MC/4101/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala invoked jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC to quash criminal proceedings under Section 498A IPC after parties independently settled matrimonial disputes and filed for divorce by mutual consent, despite a partial payment status.

What did the court decide?

All further proceedings in C.C.No.433 of 2015 pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Ottapalam, stood quashed.

P.v.Nandakumar Vs Rajeshwari — 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

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

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 4101 of 2018

¶6

IN C.C.NO. 433/2015 of JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT- I, OTTAPPALAM

¶7

CRIME NO. 964/2014 OF SHORNUR POLICE STATION , PALAKKAD

¶8

PETITIONER(S) :

¶9

1 P.V.NANDAKUMAR, AGED 47 YEARS, S/O. RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR, PARAMBATH VEEDU, PALLIPPURAM, OTTAPALAM PIN 679 305.

¶10

2 RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR, F/O. P V NANDAKUMAR, 73 YEARS, PARAMBATH VEEDU, PALLIPPURAM, OTTAPALAM PIN 679 305.

¶11

3 PADMAJA, 44 YEARS, D/O. RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR, PARAMBATH VEEDU, PALLIPPURAM, OTTAPALAM 679 305.

¶12

BY ADVS.SRI.R.SREEHARI SRI.SACHIN VYAS

¶13

RESPONDENT(S) :

¶14

1. RAJESHWARI, 52 YEARS, D/O. GOVINDAN NAIR, CHINGANADIYIL VEEDU, NEDUNGOTTUR POST, SHORNUR PIN 679 121.

¶15

2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM THROUGH THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, SHORNUR POLICE STATION, SHORNUR 679 121.

¶16

R1 BY ADV. SRI.K.RAJESH SUKUMARAN R2 BY SRI. T.R.RENJITH, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶17

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

¶18

ACM

¶19

Crl.MC.No. 4101 of 2018 ()

¶20

APPENDIX

¶21

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS :

¶22

ANNEXURE A1	CERTIFIED COPY OF FIR AND THE COMPLAINT IN CRIME NO. 964/2014 OF SHORNUR POLICE STATION
ANNEXURE A2	CERTIFIED COPY OF FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO. 964/2014 OF SHORNUR POLICE STATION
ANNEXURE A3	PHOTO COPY OF OP NO. 363/2018 OF THE FAMILY COURT, OTTAPALAM
ANNEXURE A4	AFFIDAVIT OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
RESPONDENT(S)'	EXHIBITS : NIL

//TRUE COPY//

PA TO JUDGE

ACM

SUNIL THOMAS, J.

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

¶28

Crl.M.C No.4101 of 2018

¶29

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

¶30

ORDER

¶31

The petitioners herein stands arrayed as accused in

¶32

C.C.No.433 of 2015 of pending before Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Ottapalam for offences punishable under Section 498A read with Section 34 of I.P.C.

¶33

The first respondent herein had alleged

¶34

matrimonial cruelty against the petitioners. Pending the proceedings, the parties have resolved all the matrimonial disputes evidenced by Annexure A4 agreement. On the basis of the above agreement, parties are stated to have

¶35

moved an application under Section 13B of the Hindu marriage Act seeking divorcee on joint application. An affidavit has been affirmed by the first respondent asserting the settlement and stating that the parties have

¶36

Crl.M.C No.4101 of 2018

¶37

¶38

no further grievance. The copy of the Section 13b application is produced as Annexure A3. The affidavit affirmed by the defacto-complainant is produced as Annexure A4.

¶39

The learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the defacto-complainant submitted

¶40

that they have no further grievance against each other and the matrimonial disputes have now been brought to an end.

¶41

The learned Public Prosecutor, on instructions, submitted that the statement of the first respondent has been recorded. She has asserted that the matter has been settled though the entire amount due have not been paid. It seems from Annexure A3 that the portion of the amount has agreed upon has been paid and the remaining amount will be paid at the time of recording the evidence in the Section 13b application.

¶42

Crl.M.C No.4101 of 2018

¶43

¶44

Definitely, the first respondent will be entitled

¶45

to pursue the remedy for recovery of money before the

¶46

court below.

¶47

Having considered these facts, and the

¶48

settlement now arrived at in relation to present criminal proceedings, I am inclined to invoke the jurisdiction under Section 482 of Crl.P.C to quash the criminal proceedings.

¶49

Crl.M.C stands allowed. All further proceedings in

¶50

C.C.No.433 of 2015 of pending before Judicial First Class

¶51

Magistrate Court, Ottapalam stand quashed.

Sd/-

SUNIL THOMAS, JUDGE

ACM

Crl.M.C No.4101 of 2018

¶56

P.v.Nandakumar v. Rajeshwari

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.v.Nandakumar v. Rajeshwari

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

Sharon Prakash Vs Athira T.K.