Quashed

Santha.D v. the State of Kerala Represented by the Public Prosecutor

Kerala HC24 Oct 2019Crl.MC/5317/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court quashed criminal proceedings against petitioners accused of IPC 498A/34 following an amicable settlement via Family Court. The court held that continuance of prosecution would serve no purpose after the dispute was settled.

What did the court decide?

Quashed the impugned FIR in Crime No.1058/2013, Final Report in C.C.No.2150/2017, and all further proceedings against petitioners.

Santha.D Vs the State of Kerala Represented by the… — Matrimonial and Divorce | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2019 / 2ND KARTHIKA, 1941

¶5

Crl.MC.No.5317 OF 2018

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC 2150/2017 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS ,VARKALA

¶7

PETITIONER/S:

¶8

1 SANTHA.D, AGED 67 YEARS, D/O. BHARGAVI, KATTUVILA VEEDU OTTOOR VILLAGE,MOONGODU, PARETTIL, VARKALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶9

2 RATHEESH R.S, AGED 38 YEARS, S/O. SANTHA. D, RESIDING AT DO-DO.

¶10

3 SONY, AGED 45 YEARS, D/O. SANTHA DO-DO.

¶11

4 ROMIYA, AGED 42 YEARS, D/O. SANTHA DO-DO.

¶12

5 SOFIYA, AGED 38 YEARS, D/O. SANTHA DO-DO.

¶13

BY ADVS. SRI.SHAMMI VIJAYAN SRI.AYYAPPAN SANKAR

¶14

RESPONDENT/S:

¶15

1 THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶16

2 NEETHU SASI, AGED 28 YEARS, D/O. SASI, SOORYAKANTHI, KAVALAYOOR P.O, MANAMPOOR VILLAGE, VARKALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶17

R2 BY ADV. SMT.C.M.NATTASHA

¶18

OTHER PRESENT:

¶19

SRI.SAIGI JACOB PALATTY, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶20

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24.10.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

Crl.MC.No.5317 OF 2018

¶22

::2::

¶23

ALEXANDER THOMAS, J .

¶24

Crl.M.C.No.5317 Of 2018

¶25

Dated this the 24^th day of October, 2019.

¶26

O R D E R

¶27

The petitioners herein are the accused in the impugned Anx-A1 FIR in Crime No.1058/2013 of Kallambalam Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram District, registered for offences punishable under Secs.498A & 34 of the I.P.C, on the basis of the complaint of the 2^nd respondent/de facto complainant and which has led to the institution of Anx-A2 Final Report/Charge Sheet in C.C.No.2150/2017 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Varkala. It is stated that now the entire disputes, which arose out of matrimonial disputes, between the petitioners and the 2^nd respondent/defacto complainant have been settled amicably through the Family Court as evident from Anx-A4(5) compromise entered into between the parties, wherein it is stated that the 2^nd respondent 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

¶28

::3::

¶29

Crl.MC.No.5317 OF 2018

¶30

Crl.M.C. with the prayer to quash the impugned criminal proceedings against them.

¶31

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.

¶32

::4::

¶33

Crl.MC.No.5317 OF 2018

¶34

Accordingly, it is ordered in the interest of justice that the impugned Anx-A1 FIR in Crime No.1058/2013 of Kallambalam Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram District, which has led to the institution of Anx-A2 Final Report/Charge Sheet in C.C.No.2150/2017 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Varkala and all further proceedings arising therefrom pending against the petitioners/accused persons will stand quashed.

¶35

The petitioners will produce certified copies of this order before the investigating officer concerned and the competent court below concerned. The office of the Advocate General will forward a copy of this order to the investigating officer concerned for information.

¶36

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

¶37

Sd/ALEXANDER THOMAS, Judge.

¶38

bkn/-

¶39

::5::

¶40

Crl.MC.No.5317 OF 2018

¶41

APPENDIX

¶42

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶43

ANNEXURE A1 CERTIFIED COPY OF FIR NO: 1058/2013 OF KALLAMBALAM POLICE STATION DATED 1110-2013.

¶44

ANNEXURE A2 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE CHARGE SHEET AND FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO: 1058/2013 OF KALLAMBALAM POLICE STATION DATED 1110-2013.

¶45

ANNEXURE A3 CERTIFIED COPY OF JUDGMENT IN O.P 320/2014 OF FAMILY COURT ATTINGAL DATED 20-1-2015.

¶46

ANNEXURE A4 CERTIFIED COPY OF DECREE I O.P 320/2014 OF FAMILY COURT ATTINGAL DATED 20-1-2015. ANNEXURE A5 CERTIFIED COPY OF JUDGMENT IN O.P(HMA) NO: 78/2015 OF FAMILY COURT ATTINGAL DATED 3-8-2015.

¶47

ANNEXURE A6 ORIGINAL AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT ON 24.8.2019.

Santha.D v. the State of Kerala Represented by the Public Prosecutor

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Santha.D v. the State of Kerala Represented by the Public Prosecutor

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

Dr.Anwar Hussain, Vs the Sub Inspector of Police

Vivek Ramakrishnan Vs State of Kerala

Aneesh Vs State of Kerala

Rahim Abdul Hameed Vs State of Kerala

Pradeep Kumar K. Vs Jayalakshmi

Shalini Vs State of Kerala