Quashed

Muraleedharan, v. Prejitha

Kerala HC26 Jul 2019Crl.MC/1408/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala quashed the FIR in a matrimonial dispute involving Sections 498A, 323, and 506 IPC. Finding that the aggrieved wife had settled the entire dispute, the court held that continuing the prosecution would serve no purpose other than wasting judicial time.

What did the court decide?

The impugned FIR and all further proceedings arising therefrom pending against the accused persons were quashed.

Muraleedharan, Vs Prejitha — Domestic Violence | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF JULY 2019 / 4TH SRAVANA, 1941

¶5

Crl.MC.No.1408 of 2019

¶6

CRIME NO.162/2014 OF Kollengode Police Station , Palakkad

¶7

PETITIONER/S:

¶8

1 MURALEEDHARAN, AGED 33 YEARS, S/O.KRISHNANKUTTY, 13/168, 6TH STREET, BHARATHI NAGAR, SANGULIYANDAPURAM, THRICHI, TAMIL NADU.

¶9

2 MEENAKSHIKUTTY, AGED 58 YEARS, W/O.LATE KRISHNANKUTTY, 13/168, 6TH STREET, BHARATHI NAGAR, SANGULIYANDAPURAM, THRICHI, TAMIL NADU.

¶10

3 SOBHANA, AGED 36 YEARS, D/O.LATE KRISHNANKUTTY, 13/168, 6TH STREET, BHARATHI NAGAR, SANGULIYANDAPURAM, THRICHI, TAMIL NADU.

¶11

BY ADV. SRI.V.A.JOHNSON (VARIKKAPPALLIL)

¶12

RESPONDENT/S:

¶13

1 PREJITHA, AGED 29 YEARS, D/O.KUMARAN, KUNNATHU VEEDU, MANNAMPULLI VEEDU, VADAVANNUR, CHITTUR, PALAKKAD- 678504.

¶14

2 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM- 682031.

¶15

BY ADV. SRI.UNNI SEBASTIAN KAPPEN

¶16

OTHER PRESENT:

¶17

SRI.AMJAD ALI, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR FOR R1

¶18

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26.07.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.

¶20

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

¶21

Crl.M.C.No. 1408 of 2019

¶22

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

¶23

Dated this the 26^th day of July, 2019

¶24

O R D E R

¶25

The petitioners herein are the accused in the impugned Anx.A FIR in Crime No.162/2014 of Kollengode Police Station, registered for offences punishable under Secs.498A, 323, 506(i) read with Sec. 34 of the I.P.C., on the basis of the complaint of the 1^st respondent defacto complainant. It is stated that now the entire disputes between the petitioners and the 1^st respondent defacto complainant have been settled amicably and that the 1^st respondent has sworn to Anx.B affidavit before this Court, wherein it is stated that she has settled the entire disputes with the petitioners and that she has no objection for quashment of the impugned criminal proceedings pending against the petitioners. It is in the light of these aspects that the petitioners have preferred the instant Crl.M.C. with the prayer to quash the impugned criminal proceedings against them.

¶26

In a catena of decisions, the Apex Court has held that, in appropriate cases involving even non-compoundable offences, the High Court can quash prosecution by exercise of the powers under Sec.482 of the Cr.P.C., if the parties have really settled the whole

¶27

Crl.M.C.1408/19 - : 3 :-

¶28

dispute or if the continuance of the prosecution will not serve any purpose. Here, this Court finds a real case of settlement between the parties and it is also found that continuance of the prosecution in such a situation will not serve any purpose other than wasting the precious time of the court, when the case ultimately comes before the court. On a perusal of the petition and on a close scrutiny of the investigation materials on record and the affidavit of settlement and taking into account the attendant facts and circumstances of this case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the legal principles laid down by the Apex Court in the cases as in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab reported in 2013 (1) SCC (Cri) 160 = (2012) 10 SCC 303 and Narinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and anr . reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466, more particularly paragraph 29 thereof, could be applied in this case to consider the prayer for quashment.

¶29

Accordingly, it is ordered in the interest of justice that the impugned Anx.A FIR in Crime No.162/2014 of Kollengode Police Station and all further proceedings arising therefrom pending against the accused persons will stand quashed.

¶30

The petitioners will produce certified copies of this order before

¶31

Crl.M.C.1408/19 - : 4 :-

¶32

the investigating officer concerned and the competent court below concerned. The office of the Advocate General will forward copy of this order to the investigating officer concerned for information.

¶33

With these observations and directions, the above Criminal Miscellaneous Case stands finally disposed of.

¶34

sdk+

¶35

Sd/- ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE

¶36

Crl.M.C.1408/19 - : 5 :-

¶37

APPENDIX

¶38

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶39

ANNEXURE	A TRUE COPY OF THE F. KOLLENGODE POLICE 06.02.2014.	I.R IN CRIME NO.162/2014 OF STATION, PALAKKAD DATED
ANNEXURE	B THE AFFIDAVIT SWO HEREIN EVIDENCING SETTLEMENT.	RN BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT THE AFORESAID FACTUM OF

Muraleedharan, v. Prejitha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Muraleedharan, v. Prejitha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Seethamma Sadanandan Vs State of Kerala

Rejina Vs State of Kerala

Sreedharan Vs State of Kerala

State of Kerala Vs Sreenivasan.M

Abhilash Vs State of Kerala

Dhanraj.P. Vs State of Kerala