Allowed

Ramani v. State

Kerala HC2 Nov 2018Crl.MC/5991/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court invoked suo motu jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings against four accused for cruelty under Section 498A IPC. The court allowed the petition based on a settlement affidavit by the victim indicating condonation of the acts and intent to cohabit peacefully.

What did the court decide?

Crl.M.C. allowed; all further proceedings in C.C.No.956/2014 stand quashed.

Ramani Vs State — Domestic Violence | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS

¶4

FRIDAY ,THE 02ND DAY OF NOVEMBER 2018 / 11TH KARTHIKA, 1940

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 5991 of 2018

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC 956/2014 of J.M.F.C.-I, KOTTARAKKARA

¶7

CRIME NO. 493/2014 OF PUTHOOR POLICE STATION, KOLLAM

¶8

PETITIONER/ACCUSED 1 TO 4:

¶9

1 RAMANI, AGED 66 YEARS W/O.SIVARAMAN, THUSHARA, CHERUMANGAD MURI, KALLARA JUNCTION, PUTHUR VILLAGE, PUTHOOR, KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM.

¶10

2 SEEMA, AGED 39 YEARS W/O.RAJESH, SREEDEVI BHAVAN, MYNAGAPPALLY MURI, NEAR KRISHI BHAVAN, MYNAGAPPALLY VILLAGE, KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM.

¶11

3 RAJESH, AGED 42 YEARS S/O.RAJAPPAN, SREEDEVI BHAVAN, MYNAGAPPALLY MURI, NEAR KRISHI BHAVAN, MYNAGAPPALLY VILLAGE, KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM.

¶12

4 GOPINATHAN, AGED 69 YEARS S/O.RAGHAVAN, PARAMKIMAMVILA VEEDU, CHERUMANGAD MURI, WEST OF KALLARA JUNCTION, PUTHUR VILLAGE, KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM.

¶13

BY ADV. A. SANIL KUMAR

¶14

RESPONDENT/STATE & DE FACTO COMPLAINANT:

¶15

1 STATE REPRESENTED BY STATION HOUSE OFFICER, PUTHUR POLICE STATION IN KOLLAM DISTRICT, THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶16

Crl.MC.No. 5991 of 2018

¶17

¶18

2 SMT.KARTHIKA S. D/O.SARASWATHY, AGED 29 YEARS, SARASWATHY MANDIRAM, VISHNATHUKAVU NAGAR-100, THIRUMULLAVARAM.P.O., KOLLAM-691012, FROM THUSHARA, CHERUMANGAD, KALLARA JUNCTION, PUTHUR.P.O., PUTHUR, KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM.

¶19

BY ADV. SRI.B.MOHANLAL

¶20

OTHER PRESENT:

¶21

PP-SRI. T.R.RANJITH

¶22

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02.11.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

Crl.MC.No. 5991 of 2018

¶24

¶25

O R D E R

¶26

Petitioners stand arrayed as accused Nos.1 to 4 in C.C.No.956/2014 of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court 1, Kottarakkara arising from Crime No.493/2014 of Puthoor Police Station for offence punishable under Section 498(A) read with Section

¶27

34 IPC. The 1^st petitioner is the mother in law of

¶28

the 2^nd respondent/de facto complainant. 2^nd petitioner is the daughter of the 1^st petitioner, 3^rd petitioner is the husband of the 2^nd petitioner and the 4^th petitioner is stated to be the uncle of the 2^nd respondent. 2^nd respondent was married to the son of the 1^st petitioner. Later a child was born. Matrimonial relationship got strained, leading to

¶29

the 2^nd respondent attempting to immolate herself by pouring kerosene on body and lighting fire on 03.03.2014 at 10.30 p.m. Due to the expert

¶30

treatment given, she survived. Crime was registered and after investigation final report was filed.

¶31

Crl.MC.No. 5991 of 2018

¶32

¶33

2. Crl.M.C. is filed by the accused contending that they have resolved the dispute and that the petitioners have no further grievance against each other. It was submitted that the 2^nd respondent proposes to lead a cordial life with the petitioners herein. She has affirmed an affidavit which is produced as Annexure A3 along with the Crl.M.C. wherein she has asserted that the matter has been settled. She has expressed her intention

¶34

not to pursue the criminal proceedings.

¶35

3. The learned Public Prosecutor on

¶36

instructions submitted that the 2^nd respondent has given a detailed statement reiterating her intention not to prosecute the petitioners.

¶37

4. The records reveal that after admission in the hospital, the statement of the victim was taken by a Magistrate since it was doubted that she may not survive the accident. It shows that she has attributed the entire allegations against the petitioners. Her main allegation is that the 1^st

¶38

Crl.MC.No. 5991 of 2018

¶39

¶40

petitioner used to harass her and threatened her and her husband to vacate the building. Out of mental stress, she is stated that she tried to immolate herself. 2^nd respondent has no grievance against her husband. She states that she is living happily with him. It emerges from the available records that though main allegations are attributed

¶41

to the 1^st petitioner, she has condoned their conduct and proposes now to lead a peaceful life with them. Probably she believes that the 1^st petitioner may mend their ways and accept the 2^nd respondent.

¶42

5. Having accepted the spirit involved and the submission of the learned counsel for the 2^nd respondent that the client is confident of leading a happy life with the husband and the petitioners, I am inclined to invoke the jurisdiction under

¶43

Section 482 Cr.P.C. and to quash the entire criminal proceedings as against the petitioners herein.

¶44

Crl.MC.No. 5991 of 2018

¶45

¶46

Accordingly, Crl.M.C. is allowed. All further proceedings in C.C.No.956/2014 of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court 1, Kottarakkara stand

¶47

quashed.

¶48

Sd/-

¶49

SUNIL THOMAS, JUDGE

¶50

Crl.MC.No. 5991 of 2018

¶51

¶52

APPENDIX

¶53

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶54

ANNEXURE A1 THE TRUE COPY OF FIR IN CRIME NO.493/2014 OF PUTHUR POLICE STATION IN KOLLAM DISTRICT.

¶55

ANNEXURE A2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO.493/2014 OF PUTHUR POLICE STATION IN KOLLAM DISTRICT PENDING AS C.C.NO.493/2014 OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-I, KOTTARAKKARA. ANNEXURE A3 TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT DATED 1.9.2018 SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT BEFORE THIS HON'BLE COURT.

¶56

Pn 03/11

Ramani v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramani v. State

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

K.J.Manu Vs State of Kerala

Rajeshkumar C.R Vs State of Kerala

Suresh Kumar Vs Sneha

Jayaram.v Iyyer Vs State of Kerala

S.L.P. Kunhibi @ Kunjalima Vs State of Kerala

Sasi @ Sivaramakrishnan Vs Deepa