Allowed

Vivek Ramakrishnan v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC23 Oct 2019Crl.MC/2638/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment quashes criminal proceedings under specific IPC and CrPC sections where the underlying marital dispute was settled amicably. The committee recognized that the proceedings for Sec.494 IPC were illegal as they required a private complaint, not a police report. The court applied the principles from Ganesh and Narinder Singh cases to allow quashment. The court granted relief to the accus

What did the court decide?

Quashing of the impugned Crime No.226/2016 of Karuvarakkundu Police Station, Malappuram and all further proceedings arising therefrom pending against all the accused. The petitioners are directed to p

Vivek Ramakrishnan Vs State of Kerala — Cheque Dishonour | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF OCTOBER 2019 / 1ST KARTHIKA, 1941

¶5

Crl.MC.No.2638 OF 2018

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CP 84/2017 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I,MANJERI

¶7

CRIME NO.226/2016 OF KARUVARAKUNDU POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM

¶8

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED:

¶9

1 VIVEK RAMAKRISHNAN

¶10

AGED 34 YEARS, S/O. DR. K.K. RAMAKRISHNAN, RESIDING AT AMRUTHA BHAVAN, BHAVANANM PARAMBIL, PUNNAKKAD P.O., KARUVARAKUNDU VILLAGE, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT - 676 523.

¶11

2 JALAJA RAMAKRISHNAN

¶12

AGED 65 YEARS, W/O. DR. K.K. RAMAKRISHNAN, RESIDING AT AMRUTHA BHAVAN,BHAVANANM PARAMBIL, PUNNAKKAD P.O.,KARUVARAKUNDU VILLAGE, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT - 676 523.

¶13

3 DR. K.K. RAMAKRISHNAN AGED 67 YEARS, S/O. LATE K.P.KUNHIRAMAN, RESIDING AT AMRUTHA BHAVAN, BHAVANANM PARAMBIL, PUNNAKKAD P.O., KARUVARAKUNDU VILLAGE, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT - 676 523.

¶14

BY ADVS.

¶15

SRI.N.BHASKARAN NAIR SRI.LEO LUKOSE

¶16

RESPONDENTS/STATE & DE FACTO COMPLAINANT:

¶17

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 682 031.

¶18

2 STATE, SI OF POLICE KARUVARAKUNDU POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT - 676 523.

¶19

3 DR. RADHIKA A. KUMAR @ RADHIKA AGED 31 YEARS, D/O. DR. ANIL KUMAR, RESIDING AT MARTHANDA MANDIRAM, VIKAS NAGAR - 145, PATTATHANAM EAST KOLLAM - 691 021.

¶20

Crl.M.C.No.2638 of 2018

¶21

¶22

R3 BY ADV. SRI.V.AJAKUMAR ADV. SRI.SIDHARTH A.MENON

¶23

SRI.AMJAD ALI, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶24

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23.10.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶25

Crl.M.C.No.2638 of 2018

¶26

¶27

ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.

¶28

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

¶29

Crl.M.C.No.2638 of 2018

¶30

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 23^rd day of October, 2019

¶31

O R D E R

¶32

The petitioners herein have been arrayed as accused Nos.1 to 3 in Crime No.226/2016 of Karuvarakkundu Police Station, Malappuram, registered for offences punishable under Secs.498A, 406, 120B, 420, 313, 494 read with Sec.34 of the Indian Penal Code, which led to the pendency of committal proceedings C.P.No.84/2017 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Manjeri.

¶33

It appears that the police has also registered the crime even for the offence as per Sec.494 of the Cr.P.C and the final report/charge sheet is also in relation to the said offence as per Sec.494 of the Indian Penal Code as well, etc. Sec.494 of the IPC comes under Chapter XX of the IPC in the matter of offences relating to marriage. Sec.198(1) of the Cr.P.C mandates that no Court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under Chapter XX of the Indian Penal Code except upon a complaint made by some person aggrieved by the offence. Now it is too well established and so it

¶34

Crl.M.C.No.2638 of 2018

¶35

¶36

does not require the citation of any judicial authority that cognizance of an offence as per Sec.494 of the IPC, which comes under Chapter XX of the IPC cannot be prosecuted on the basis of a police report/final report/charge sheet, as Sec.198(1) of the Cr.P.C specifically mandates that such cognizance in relation to the said offence can be taken only on the basis of a private criminal complaint filed by the party, who is aggrieved by such offence. Hence, the impugned criminal proceedings to the limited extent it relates to offence as per Sec.494 of the IPC is illegal and ultra vires . It is now stated that the disputes arose mainly on account of the marital discord between the 1^st petitioner and the 3^rd respondent. Now it is stated that the 1^st petitioner and the 3^rd respondent have already dissolved the marital relationship on the basis of a compromise made before the Family Court. It is stated that now the entire disputes between the petitioners herein and the 3^rd respondent de facto complainant have been settled amicably and that the 3^rd respondent has sworn to Annexure-A6 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

¶37

Crl.M.C.No.2638 of 2018

¶38

¶39

criminal proceedings against them.

¶40

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 this case to consider the prayer for quashment.

¶41

Accordingly, it is ordered in the interest of justice that the impugned Crime No.226/2016 of Karuvarakkundu Police Station,

¶42

Crl.M.C.No.2638 of 2018

¶43

¶44

Malappuram, which led to Annexure-A3 final report and the pendency of committal proceedings C.P.No.84/2017 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Manjeri and all further proceedings arising therefrom pending against all the accused will stand quashed.

¶45

The petitioners will produce certified copies of this order to the Investigating Officer concerned and the competent court below concerned. Office of Advocate General will forward a copy of this order to the Investigating Officer concerned, for necessary information.

¶46

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

¶47

Sd/ALEXANDER THOMAS JUDGE

¶48

vgd

¶49

Crl.M.C.No.2638 of 2018

¶50

¶51

APPENDIX

¶52

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶53

ANNEXURE A1.	CERTIFIED COPY OF FIR TO CIRME NO.1465/2016 REGISTERED AT KOLLAM EAST POLICE STATION ON 29.4.2016
ANNEXURE A2.	CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.226/2016
ANNEXURE A3.	CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT SUBMITTED BY RESPONDENT NO.2
ANNEXURE A4.	CERTIFIED COPY OF DOCUMENTS MAINTAINED IN THE ANADIYIL HOSPITAL REGARDING THE TERMINATION OF PREGNANCY OF CW-1 DONE BY CW-10
ANNEXURE A5.	CERTIFIED COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN ISSUED BY CW-22 AFTER EXAMINING CW-14 ON 14/11/2015 AND ISSUED ON 13.3.2017 ALONG WITH THE LEGIBLE COPY
ANNEXURE A6	AN AFFIDAVIT EXECUTED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 30/08/2019.

Vivek Ramakrishnan v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vivek Ramakrishnan 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

Somarajan Vs State of Kerala

Shiras Shamsuddin Vs State of Kerala

Mathew N.Thomas Vs State of Kerala

Dr.Anwar Hussain, Vs the Sub Inspector of Police

Aneesh Vs State of Kerala

Dr.Anwar Hussain Vs Sona Noushad