Allowed

Manoj Kumar v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC14 Oct 2019Crl.MC/754/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed criminal proceedings against petitioners accused of Crime No.864/2016. The court found that the matrimonial dispute between the accused and the complainant-witness had been harmoniously resolved, satisfying the legal principles for quashing under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to prevent wasting judicial time.

What did the court decide?

Quashed of the impugned final report/charge sheet in Crime No.864/2016 and all further proceedings arising therefrom pending against the accused persons.

Manoj Kumar Vs State of Kerala — 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

MONDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2019 / 22ND ASWINA, 1941

¶5

Crl.MC.No.754 OF 2019(D)

¶6

CHARGE SHEET IN CRIME NO.864 OF 2016 OF PERAMANGALAM POLICE STATION (THRISSUR DISTRICT) NOW PENDING AS (CC NO.3873 OF 2016) ON THE FILES OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, KUNNAMKULAM (THRISSUR DIST)*

¶7

*** CORRECTED AS PER ORDER DATED 09.10.2020 IN CRL.MA NO.1/2020 IN CRL.MC NO.754/2019.**

¶8

CRIME NO.864/2016 OF Peramangalam Police Station , Thrissur

¶9

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO.1 TO 4:

¶10

1 MANOJ KUMAR

¶11

AGED 40 YEARS

¶12

S/O SASIDHARAN PILLAI, THIRUVONAM, EZHILATH VEEDU, KOIKAL DESOM, KIZHAKKEKALLADA PO, KOLLAM (DIST)

¶13

2 SASIDHARAN PILLAI

¶14

AGED 65 YEARS

¶15

S/O BHASKARAN PILLAI, THIRUVONAM, EZHILATH VEEDU, KOIKAL DESOM, KIZHAKKEKALLADA PO, KOLLAM (DIST)

¶16

3 RADHAMMA, AGED 65 YEARS

¶17

W/O SASIDHARAN PILLAI, THIRUVONAM, EZHILATH VEEDU, KOIKAL DESOM, KIZHAKKEKALLADA PO, KOLLAM (DIST)

¶18

4 MANJU AGED 43 YEARS

¶19

D/O. SASIDHARAN PILLAI, THIRUVONAM, EZHILATH VEEDU, KOIKAL DESOM, KIZHAKKEKALLADA PO, KOLLAM (DIST)

¶20

BY ADV. SRI.M.RAJESH

¶21

RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANTS:

¶22

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

¶23

2 THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE PERAMANGALAM POLICE STATION, THRISSUR-688 001.

¶24

3 SAJITHA AGED 36 YEARS

¶25

Crl.MC.No.754 OF 2019(D)

¶26

¶27

D/O ARJUNAN, VATTAPPARAMBIL HOUSE, PUNARATTUKARA, THRISSUR TALUK, THRISSUR-688 001.

¶28

SRI.AMJAD ALI, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶29

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14.10.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶30

Crl.MC.No.754 OF 2019(D)

¶31

¶32

ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.

¶33

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

¶34

Crl.M.C.No.754 of 2019 ======================== Dated this the 14^th day of October, 2019

¶35

ORDER

¶36

The 3^rd respondent-lady de facto complainant in this case is the wife of the 1^st petitioner herein (A1). The 2^nd to 4^th petitioners herein (A2 to A4), are the father, mother and the sister respectively of the 1^st petitioner herein (A1). They have now submitted that the entire disputes between the abovesaid persons have been resolved harmoniously due to the intervention of well wishers and that steps are being taken to resolve the matrimonial relationship between the 1^st petitioner herein and the 3^rd respondent herein for which they have filed application for divorce on the mutual consent which is pending before the Family Court etc. Further the 3^rd respondent would state that she has no objection in quashment of the impugned criminal proceedings in this case, as the matter has been fully settled between the parties. 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.

¶37

In a catena of decisions, the Apex Court has held that, in appropriate cases involving even non-compoundable offences, the

¶38

Crl.MC.No.754 OF 2019(D)

¶39

¶40

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 Anx.1 final report/charge sheet filed in Crime No.864/2016 of Peramangalam Police Station, which has led to the institution of Calendar Case, C.C.No.1326/2016 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kunnamkulam and all further proceedings arising

¶42

Crl.MC.No.754 OF 2019(D)

¶43

¶44

therefrom pending against the accused persons will stand quashed. 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 copy of this order to the investigating officer concerned for information.

¶45

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

Sd/-

ALEXANDER THOMAS

JUDGE

SVP

Crl.MC.No.754 OF 2019(D)

¶51

¶52

The Calendar Case number “C.C. No.1326 of 2016” occurring in the 4^th line of 3^rd paragraph in the final order dated 14.10.2019 in Crl.M.C No.754 of 2019 is corrected and substituted as “C.C. No.3873 of 2016” as per order dated 09.10.2020 in Crl.M.A No.1/2020 in Crl.M.C No.754 of 2019.

¶53

Sd/DEPUTY REGISTRAR

¶54

Crl.MC.No.754 OF 2019(D)

¶55

¶56

APPENDIX

¶57

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶58

ANNEXURE 1 A TRUE COPY OF THE CHARGE SHEET IN CRIME NO.864/2016 OF PERAMANGALAM POLICE STATION, THRISSUR.

¶59

ANNEXURE 2 AN AFFIDAVIT DATED 18.1.2019 SUBMITTED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶60

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL

Manoj Kumar v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manoj Kumar 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

Sona Noushad Vs State of Kerala

Ajeesh Vs State of Kerala

Unnikrishna Pillai Vs State of Kerala

Pramod Vs State of Kerala

Vineetha Vs State of Kerala

Reji Krishnan.R @ Pachi Vs State of Kerala