Allowed

Anandkumar v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC9 Aug 2019Crl.MC/1628/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Kerala quashed First Information Report and charge sheet pending against three accused. Provisions charged included IPC Sections 498A, 34 and Dowry Prohibition Act Section 4. Case disposed based on settlement affidavit filed by wife respondent.

What did the court decide?

Quashed impugned FIR (Crime No.1405/2016), charge sheet (C.C. No.1183/2017) and all further proceedings pending against accused persons.

Anandkumar Vs State of Kerala — Kerala HC (2019) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 09TH DAY OF AUGUST 2019 / 18TH SRAVANA, 1941

¶5

CRL.MC.NO.1628 OF 2019(C)

¶6

CC 1183/2017 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, MATTANCHERY

¶7

CRIME NO.1405/2016 OF MATTANCHERRY POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM

¶8

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.1 TO 3:

¶9

1 ANANDKUMAR,

¶10

CC 6/334, THOPPINAKAM, ANAVATHIL JN., MATTANCHERRY, KOCHI.

¶11

2 SELVI, CC 6/334, THOPPINAKAM, ANAVATHIL JN., MATTANCHERRY, KOCHI.

¶12

3 ANILKUMAR CC 6/334, THOPPINAKAM, ANAVATHIL JN., MATTANCHERRY, KOCHI.

¶13

BY ADV. SRI.P.S.SYAMKUTTAN

¶14

RESPONDENTS/STATE & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:

¶15

1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MATTANCHERRY POLICE STATION IN ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031.

¶16

2 SIVAKAMI, AGED 25 YEARS, W/O.ANANDKUMAR, CC 6/334, THOPPINAKAM, ANAVATHIL JN., MATTANCHERRY, KOCHI-682002.

¶17

SMT.M.N.MAYA, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR FOR R1, SMT.P.K.PRIYA, ADVOCATE FOR R2

¶18

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09.08.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.

¶20

Crl.M.C. No. 1628 of 2019

¶21

Dated this the 9^th day of August, 2019

¶22

O R D E R

¶23

The petitioners herein are the accused in the impugned Anx.A1 FIR in Crime No.1405/2016 of Mattacherry Police Station, Ernakulam district, registered for offences punishable under Secs.498A & 34 of the IPC and Sec.4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, which has led to the institution of Anx.A2 charge sheet in C.C.No.1183/2017 on the file of JFCM-V, Mattancherry. It is stated that now the entire disputes between the petitioners and the 2^nd respondent defacto complainant have been settled amicably and that the 2^nd respondent has sworn to Anx.A3 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.

¶24

..3..

¶25

Crl.M.C. No. 1628 / 2019

¶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 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

¶27

..4..

¶28

Crl.M.C. No. 1628 / 2019

¶29

this case to consider the prayer for quashment.

¶30

Accordingly, it is ordered in the interest of justice that the impugned Anx.A1 FIR in Crime No.1405/2016 of Mattacherry Police Station, Ernakulam district, which has led to the institution of Anx.A2 charge sheet in C.C.No.1183/2017 on the file of JFCM-V, Mattancherry, and all further proceedings arising therefrom pending against the accused persons will stand quashed. The petitioners will produce certified copies of this order before 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.

¶31

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

¶32

Sd/-

¶33

ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE

¶34

MMG

¶35

Crl.M.C. No. 1628 / 2019

¶36

..5..

¶37

APPENDIX

¶38

PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:

¶39

ANNEXURE A1 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIRST INFORMATION REPORT CRIME NO.1405/2016 OF THE MATTANCHERRY POLICE STATION. ANNEXURE A2 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE CHARGE SHEET IN CRIME NO.1405/2016 OF THE MATTANCHERRY POLICE STATION. ANNEXURE A3 ORIGINAL AFFIDAVIT DATED 12.2.2019 SWORN IN BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

Anandkumar v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anandkumar 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Suneesh K.T. Vs Harsha K.H.

K.N.Sreekumar Vs Salma N.

Noufalsha Vs State of Kerala

Alias, Vs State of Kerala

Usman.E.K. @ Usman Darimi Vs the Sub Inspector of Police

Usman E.K @ Usman Darimi Vs the Sub Inspector of Police