Allowed

Sandhya Mol v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC30 Oct 2019Crl.MC/5622/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court allowed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash cognizance proceedings for theft. Quashing was based on genuine settlement, lack of public interest due to the nature of the relationship between accused and complainant, and the accused's youth and clean record.

What did the court decide?

All proceedings against the petitioner in C.C.No.1355/2015 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Manjeri are quashed.

Sandhya Mol Vs State of Kerala — Quashing and FIR | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. NARAYANA PISHARADI

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2019 / 8TH KARTHIKA, 1941

¶5

Crl.MC.No.5622 OF 2019(C)

¶6

IN C.C.NO.1355/2015 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASSI,MANJERI

¶7

CRIME NO.949/2011 OF Manjeri Police Station , Malappuram

¶8

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

¶9

SANDHYA MOL

¶10

AGED 31 YEARS D/O.K.K.APPUKUTAN KONNAKKAMALA HOUSE, POLINHAPALAM, ADIMALI.P.O-685561, IDUKKI DISTRICT

¶11

BY ADV. SRI.P.SAMSUDIN

¶12

RESPONDENTS/STATE AND DE FACTO COMPLAINANT:

¶13

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031(IN CRIME NO.949/2011 OF MANJERI POLICE STATION)

¶14

2 SATHI DEVI

¶15

AGED 60 YEARS D/O.MADHAVAN, ABHILASH BAVANAM, VELLIMAN.P.O-681511, PERINGAD, SREE SIVANMUKKU, KOLLAM DISTRICT.

¶16

BY ADVS.

¶17

R2 SRI.BINU.V.V SMT V SREEJA-PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶18

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30.10.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

Crl.MC.No.5622 OF 2019(C) 2

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

This is a petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C for quashing the proceedings against the petitioner in the case C.C.No.1355/2015 on the file of the Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Manjeri.

¶22

The petitioner is the sole accused in the aforesaid case. The allegation against her is that she has committed an offence punishable under Section 379 IPC. According to the prosecution case, while the petitioner and the de facto complainant were residing together in a hostel, the petitioner committed theft of 3.5 sovereigns of gold ornaments, worth about Rs.75,000/-, which were kept in the vanity bag of the de facto complainant.

¶23

The 2^nd respondent is the de facto complainant in the case. It is submitted that the matter has been settled between her and the petitioner. Therefore, it is prayed that the proceedings against the petitioner in the case may be quashed.

¶24

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the 2^nd respondent and also the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶25

Crl.MC.No.5622 OF 2019(C) 3

¶26

I have perused the affidavit filed by the 2^nd respondent, who has entered appearance through counsel. It is stated in the affidavit filed by her that the matter has been settled between her and the petitioner and that she has got no grievance against the petitioner and also that she has got no objection to quash the proceedings against the petitioner in the case. I am satisfied that the settlement arrived at between the parties is genuine.

¶27

It is true that an offence punishable under Section 379 IPC is alleged against the petitioner. However, I take note of the fact the theft of ornaments was allegedly committed by the petitioner from the possession of the person who was staying along with her in the hostel. There is no element of public interest involved in the case. The petitioner is a young lady. It is probable that the offence was committed by her at a bad moment without any deliberation. Moreover, the learned Public Prosecutor has submitted, on instructions, that the petitioner has got no criminal antecedents. It is proper to give her a chance for reformation. In these circumstances, I find that the power of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C can be invoked to quash the proceedings against the petitioner in the

¶28

Crl.MC.No.5622 OF 2019(C) 4

¶29

case.

¶30

Consequently, the petition is allowed. The entire proceedings against the petitioner in the case C.C.No.1355/2015 on the file of the Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Manjeri, are hereby quashed.

¶31

Sd/-

¶32

R. NARAYANA PISHARADI

¶33

JUDGE

¶34

LEK

¶35

Crl.MC.No.5622 OF 2019(C) 5

¶36

APPENDIX

¶37

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶38

ANNEXURE A1 CERTIFIED COPY OF FIR IN CRIME NO.949/2011 OF MANJERI POLICE STATION ANNEXURE A2 CERTIFIED COPY OF FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO.949/2011 OF MANJERI POLICE STATION ANNEXURE A3 THE AFFIDAVIT OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT (DEFACTO COMPLAINANT) DATED 02.08.2019

Sandhya Mol v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sandhya Mol 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

N.M.Kareem, Vs Abdul Samad

Gladys Rodricks Vs Jessel Vinohar Rodricks

Junaid Vs State of Kerala

Suo Moto, Vs State of Kerala

Shajeer Vs State of Kerala

Majeed.M.a Vs the State of Kerala