Allowed

Abdul Rasheed v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC18 Jul 2018Crl.MC/4309/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings for offences under sections 498A and 34 of the IPC. Relying on an affidavit by the complainant and legal submissions, the Court found that matrimonial disputes were amicably settled and parties were legally separated, invoking jurisdiction to quash the entire trial.

What did the court decide?

Crl.M.C.No. 4309 of 2018 allowed; proceedings in CC.No.1648/2014 against petitioners quashed.

Abdul Rasheed Vs 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

WEDNESDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF JULY 2018 / 27TH ASHADHA, 1940

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 4309 of 2018

¶6

CC 1648/2014 of JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-II, ATTINGAL

¶7

CRIME NO. 191/2013 OF MANGALAPURAM POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANDAPURAM

¶8

PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED A1 TO A3 :

¶9

1 ABDUL RASHEED,

¶10

AGED 41, S/O.SALAHUDEEN, AYANIMOODU VEEDU,

¶11

PERUMKOOR, THEKADA VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURM-695615.

¶12

2 LAILA,

¶13

AGED 46, D/O.SAINABA, AYANIMOODU VEEDU,

¶14

PERUMKOOR, THEKADA VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURM-695615.

¶15

3 SALIM,

¶16

AGED 51, S/O.MUHAMMED KHASIM, AYANIMOODU VEEDU,

¶17

PERUMKOOR, THEKADA VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURM-695615.

¶18

BY ADV.SRI.M.ABDUL RASHEED

¶19

RESPONDENT(S)/STATE & DE-FACTO COMPLAINANT:

¶20

1. STATE OF KERALA, THROUGH STATION HOUSE OFFICER, MANGALAPURAM POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031.

¶21

2. SHOHIDA BEEVI @ SOFIA BEEVI, AGED 41, D/O.ABOOBAKER, ANOOR MANGLAVIL HOUSE, PAICHIRA, PALLIPPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695316.

¶22

R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.T.R.RENJITH R2 BY ADV. SRI.AJAYA KUMAR. G

¶23

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18-07-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶24

DSV/-

¶25

Crl.MC.No. 4309 of 2018 ()

¶26

APPENDIX

¶27

PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES:

¶28

ANNEXURE A1 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE CHARGE SHEET IN C.C.NO.1648/2014 ON THE FILE OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-II, ATTINGAL WHICH ARISE FROM CRIME NO.191/2013 OF MANGALAPURAM POLICE STATION. ANNEXURE A2 ORIGINAL AFFIDAVIT SIGNED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT/DE-FACTO COMPLAINANT.

¶29

RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXIRES :

NIL

// TRUE COPY //

P.A. TO JUDGE

DSV/-

SUNIL THOMAS, J

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

Crl.M.C.No.4309 of 2018

¶37

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

¶38

Dated this the 18^th day of July, 2018

¶39

O R D E R

¶40

The petitioners are accused in CC.No.1648/2014 on

¶41

the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Attingal, arising from Crime No.191/2013 of the Mangalapuram police station for offences punishable under section 498A read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶42

It was alleged by the 2^nd respondent defacto complainant that she was subjected to matrimonial cruelty by her husband and in-laws, who are the petitioners herein. Crime was registered and Annexure-A1 charge sheet was laid. The petitioners are now facing trial. Claiming that at present all the disputes between the petitioners and the 2^nd respondent are amicably settled,

¶43

the petitioners have approached this Court. They are armed with an original affidavit affirmed by the 2^nd respondent produced as Annexure-A2.

¶44

The learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the 2^nd respondent submitted that the

¶45

¶46

Crl.M.C.No.4309 of 2018

¶47

parties have resolved their disputes evidenced by Annexure-A2. It is stated that the parties are separated legally. It is also reported that other legal proceedings, which were also pending before the Family Court, have also been settled.

¶48

The learned Public Prosecutor, on instructions, submitted that the parties have resolved their disputes and it has been communicated to the investigating agency. Considering these facts, I am inclined to invoke the jurisdiction under section 482 Cr.P.C and to quash the entire criminal proceedings.

¶49

Hence, Crl.M.C is allowed. All further proceedings in

¶50

CC.No.1648/2014 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Attingal, arising from Crime No.191/2013 of the Mangalapuram Police Station as against the petitioners herein stand quashed.

¶51

Sd/-

¶52

SUNIL THOMAS, JUDGE

¶53

DSV/18/7/18

Abdul Rasheed v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abdul Rasheed 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

Nibi @ Babu Vs State of Kerala

Jessy Shaji Vs Teena Kuncheria

Madhusoodhanan Nair Vs the State of Kerala

Mahesh Vs State of Kerala

Anzil Vs the State of Kerala

Shan Vs the State of Kerala