Allowed

Shalini v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC24 Oct 2019Crl.MC/7794/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed quashing of two criminal cases (CCs 64/2017 and 75/2016) initiated between spouses due to matrimonial disputes. Based on a settlement agreement reached via District Mediation Centre, the court quashed proceedings under Sections 498A, 420, etc., IPC, citing no utility in continuing prosecution.

What did the court decide?

Impugned proceedings in CC no. 64/2017 and CC no. 75/2016, along with all further proceedings pending against accused persons therein, were quashed.

Shalini 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

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

¶5

Crl.MC.No.2412 OF 2019(B)

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC 64/2017 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -I, TRIVANDRUM

¶7

PETITIONER/S:

¶8

1 UMASANKAR, AGED 45 YEARS S/O. VIJAYALAKSHMI, SREE DHANALAKSHMI NIVAS, PANAMANNA SOUTH P.O, OTTAPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

¶9

2 VIJAYALAKSHMI, AGED 68 YEARS W/O. LATE SIVASANKAR, 3B, OMEGA CROWN FLAT, POONKUNNAM, THRISSUR.

¶10

3 UDAYASANKAR, AGED 47 YEARS S/O. VIJAYALAKSHMI, SREE DHANALAKSHMI NIVAS, PANAMANNA SOUTH P.O, OTTAPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

¶11

4 AISWARYA SANKAR, D/O. VIJAYALAKSHMI, 3B, OMEGA CROWN FLAT, POONKUNNAM, THRISSUR

¶12

5 SUJITH S. NAIR, H/O. AISWARYA SANKAR, 3B, OMEGA CROWN FLAT, POONKUNNAM, THRISSUR.

¶13

6 DEEPA SANKAR, W/O. UDAYASANKAR, SREE DHANALAKSHMI NIVAS, PANAMANNA SOUTH P.O, OTTAPALAM, PALAKKAD

¶14

1ST PETITIONER IS REPRESENTED BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, THE 4TH PETITIONER.

¶15

BY ADVS.

¶16

SRI.P.JAYARAM SRI.SARATH CHANDRAN K.B.

¶17

RESPONDENT/S:

¶18

::2::

¶19

Crl.M.C.Nos.2412/2019 & 7794/2017

¶20

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

¶21

2 SALINI SREENIVASAN, AGED 35 YEARS D/O. SREENIVASAN, SREEVALLI, T.V.R.A 161(A) SASTHAMKONAM, ALATHARA ROAD, SREEKARYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 017

¶22

R2 BY ADV. SRI.SIDHARTH A.MENON R2 BY ADV. SRI.RAHUL SUNIL R2 BY ADV. SRI.THEJAN RAJ

¶23

OTHER PRESENT:

¶24

SRI.SAIGI JACOB PALATTY, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, SRI.V.AJAKUMAR

¶25

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24.10.2019, ALONG WITH Crl.MC.7794/2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶26

::3::

¶27

Crl.M.C.Nos.2412/2019 & 7794/2017

¶28

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶29

PRESENT

¶30

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS

¶31

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

¶32

Crl.MC.No.7794 OF 2017

¶33

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC 75/2016 OF CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE ,THRISSUR

¶34

PETITIONER/S:

¶35

1 SHALINI, AGED 35 YEARS,D/O.SREENIVASAN, RESIDING AT ARAVALLY HOUSE,POTHUJANAM ROAD, KUMARAPURAM,MEDICAL

¶36

COLLEGE,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶37

2 SREENIVASAN, AGED 64 YEARS, S/O.NARAYANA PANICKER.C.R, RESIDING AT -DO-.

¶38

3 ELAZABETH SREENIVASAN, AGED 62 YEARS, W/O.SREENIVASAN,RESIDING AT-DO-.

¶39

4 ABHILASH DAS, AGED 36 YEARS, S/O.SIVADASAN, RESIDING AT PUTHUPARAMBIL HOUSE, PANNIKODE.P.O, KOZHIKODE,PIN-673602.

¶40

5 ANEESH, AGED 35 YEARS, S/O.SIVADASAN,AT -DO-.

¶41

BY ADVS.

¶42

SRI.V.AJAKUMAR SRI.SIDHARTH A.MENON

¶43

RESPONDENT/S:

¶44

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

¶45

::4::

¶46

Crl.M.C.Nos.2412/2019 & 7794/2017

¶47

2 UMASANKARA.C.A , AGED 42 YEARS, S/O.K.VIJAYAKUMARI, RESIDING AT PANNAMANNA SOUTH.P.O, OTTAPALAM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT,

¶48

FLAT NO.38,OMEGA CROWN,POOKUNNAM,TRISSUR-2, REPRESENTED BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER AISWARYA, AGED 40 YEARS, D/O.VIJAYAKUMARI, RESIDING AT -DO-.SOWBHAGYA, HOUSE NO.23 A, ALTHARA NAGAR, VAZHUTHACADU,SASTHAMANGALAM VILLAGE,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶49

R2 BY ADV. SRI.P.JAYARAM

¶50

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24.10.2019, ALONG WITH Crl.MC.2412/2019(B), THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶51

::5::

¶52

Crl.M.C.Nos.2412/2019 & 7794/2017

¶53

ALEXANDER THOMAS, J .

¶54

Crl.M.C.Nos.2412/2019 & 7794/2017 --------------------------------Dated this the 24^th day of October, 2019.

¶55

O R D E R

¶56

The impugned criminal proceedings in these two cases have arisen predominantly on account of the matrimonial disputes between the husband, who is the 1^st petitioner in Crl.M.C.No.2412/2019, who has been arrayed as the 2^nd respondent in Crl.M.C.No.7794/2017 and the wife, who is arrayed as the 1^st petitioner Crl.M.C.No.7794/2017 and as the 2^nd respondent in Crl.M.C.No.2412/2019. Now, it appears that consequent to the mediation efforts undertaken by the couple and their family members and their relatives, the spouses have decided to put a quietus to the ' war ' between them and decided to bury the hatchet and decided to dissolve the martial relationship and a comprehensive settlement has been arrived at between the parties and also for quashment of the impugned criminal proceedings between them. The husband and some of his family members are the petitioners in Crl.M.C.No.2412/2019, which has been filed for quashing the impugned criminal proceedings in C.C.No.64/2017

¶57

::6::

¶58

Crl.M.C.Nos.2412/2019 & 7794/2017

¶59

on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Thiruvananthapuram, which has been initiated by the 2^nd respondent therein (wife) and the offences alleged therein are punishable under Secs.498A, 354B, 506(ii), 120B r/w 34 of the I.P.C. Whereas the wife and her immediate family members have filed Crl.M.C.No.7794/2017 so as to seek quashment of the impugned criminal proceedings in C.C.No.75/2016 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Thrissur, which has been initiated at the instance of the 2^nd respondent therein (husband) and the offences alleged therein are those punishable under Secs.420, 497 & 34 of the I.P.C.

¶60

Heard Sri.P.Jayaram, learned counsel for the petitioners in Crl.M.C.No.2412/2019 as well as for the 2^nd respondent in Crl.M.C.No.7794/2017, Sri.V.Ajakumar, learned counsel for the petitioners in Crl.M.C.No.7794/2017 as well as for the 2^nd respondent in Crl.M.C.No.2412/2019 and Sri.Saigi Jacob Palatty, learned Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State in these two matters.

¶61

Now, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners in these 2 cases that the entire disputes between the

¶62

::7::

¶63

Crl.M.C.Nos.2412/2019 & 7794/2017

¶64

parties have been harmoniously resolved through mediation undertaken through District Mediation Centre, Kozhikode and a copy of the mediation settlement agreement dated 9.8.2009 entered into between the parties has been produced as Anx-A6 in Crl.M.C.No.2412/2019. Various clauses have been incorporated in Anx-A6 mediation settlement agreement for settlement of various disputes and the relevant clause in Anx-A6 mediation settlement agreement to the extent it concerns the present cases is that both the parties fully agree to withdraw the criminal proceedings which have led to institution of C.C.No.64/2017 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Thiruvananthapuram, and the proceedings in C.C.No.75/2016 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Thiruvananthapuram, as against all the accused persons therein in those 2 cases may be quashed by this Court on the ground of settlement between the parties. The learned Prosecutor has also does not have any serious objection to the said course of action as the mediation has been successfully finalised through the District Mediation Centre.

¶65

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

¶66

::8::

¶67

Crl.M.C.Nos.2412/2019 & 7794/2017

¶68

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 affidavits 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.

¶69

Accordingly, it is ordered in the interest of justice in Crl.M.C.No.2412/2019 that the impugned proceedings in C.C.No.64/2017 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate

¶70

::9::

¶71

Crl.M.C.Nos.2412/2019 & 7794/2017

¶72

Court-I, Thiruvananthapuram, and all further proceedings arising therefrom pending against the accused persons therein will stand quashed.

¶73

Further it is also ordered in Crl.M.C.No.7794/2017 that impugned proceedings in C.C.No.75/2016 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Thrissur and all further proceedings arising therefrom pending against all the accused persons therein will stand quashed.

¶74

The respective parties will produce certified copies of this common order before the respective trial court concerned in these matters for necessary information.

¶75

With these observations and directions, the above Crl.M.Cs will stand finally disposed of.

¶76

Sd/ALEXANDER THOMAS, Judge.

¶77

bkn/-

¶78

::10::

¶79

Crl.M.C.Nos.2412/2019 & 7794/2017

¶80

APPENDIX OF Crl.MC 2412/2019

¶81

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶82

ANNEXURE A1 COPY OF THE COMPLAINT IN CC NO. 64/2017 ON THE FILES OF JUDICIAL 1ST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-I, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶83

ANNEXURE A2 COPY OF THE SWORN STATEMENT GIVEN BY CW 1, 2ND RESPONDENT HEREIN/COMPLAINT, SALINI SREENIVASAN, IN C.M.P NO. 4447/2016/CC 64/2017 ON THE FILES OF JUDICIAL 1ST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-I, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶84

ANNEXURE A3 COPY OF THE SWORN STATEMENT GIVEN BY CW.2, ELIZABETH MOTHER OF 2ND RESPONDENT HEREIN/COMPLAINT, IN C.M.P NO. 4447/2016/CC 64/2017 ON THE FILES OF JUDICIAL 1ST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-I, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶85

ANNEXURE A4 COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT EXECUTED BY 1ST PETITIONER AND 2ND RESPONDENT HEREIN AT KOZHIKODE MEDIATION CENTRE IN O.P 573/2015, FAMILY COURT, KOZHIKODE.

¶86

ANNEXURE A5 COPY OF THE COMPLAINT IN CC NO. 75/2016 ON THE FILES OF CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, THRISSUR. ANNEXURE A6 COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DTD. 9.8.2019 EXECUTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER AND 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶87

APPENDIX OF Crl.MC 7794/2017

¶88

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶89

ANNEXURE 1	THE (C.M.	CERTIFIED COPY P.NO.6037/2015).	OF THE	COMPLAINT
ANNEXURE 2	THE 4/6/1	CERTIFIED COPY O 6 IN C.M.P.NO.6037	F THE O /15 (C.C.	RDER DATED NO.75/2016)
ANNEXURE 3	TRUE POWER	COPY OF THE SWO OF ATTORNEY HOLDE	RN STATEM R OF THE	ENT OF THE COMLAINANT
ANNEXURE 3(A)	TRUE CW2.	COPY OF THE SWO	RN STATEM	ENT OF THE
ANNEXURE 3(B)	TRUE	COPY OF THE SWORN	STATEMENT	OF THE CW3
ANNEXURE 3(C)	TRUE	COPY OF THE SWORN	STATEMENT	OF THE CW4
ANNEXURE 3(D)	TRUE	COPY OF THE SWORN	STATEMENT	OF THE CW5
ANNEXURE 4	TRUE (C.M.	COPY OF P.NO.4447/2016)	THE	COMPLAINT
ANNEXURE 5	TRUE C.M.P	COPY OF THE ORDER .NO.4447/2016 (C.C	DATED 2 .NO.65/20	7/1/2017 IN 17).

Shalini v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shalini 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

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

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