Allowed

Mayadevi K. v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC1 Nov 2019Crl.MC/7983/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court in Criminal Misc. No. 7983 of 2017 allowed the petitioner's petition for quashing criminal proceedings. Following an amicable settlement between the de facto complainant and the accused persons in a case involving Dowry Harassment and Cruelty, the Court held that the prosecution should be quashed as it would not serve any purpose.

What did the court decide?

The impugned Final Report and all further proceedings pending against respondents 2 to 4 shall stand quashed.

Mayadevi K. 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 ALEXANDER THOMAS

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 01ST DAY OF NOVEMBER 2019 / 10TH KARTHIKA, 1941

¶5

Crl.MC.No.7983 OF 2017

¶6

AGAINST CC 1135/2014 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, KAYAMKULAM

¶7

CRIME NO.1133/2013 OF VALLIKUNNAM POLICE STATION , ALAPPUZHA

¶8

PETITIONER/DE FACTO COMPLAINANT:

¶9

MAYADEVI K.

¶10

AGED 31 YEARS, D/O. MADHUSEKHARA KURUP, KOCHUKOIKKAL PADEETHATHIL, THEKKEKARA P.O, MAVELIKARA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT

¶11

BY ADV. SRI.RENJIT GEORGE

¶12

RESPONDENT/ACCUSED/STATE:

¶13

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

¶14

2 RAJEEV UNNITHAN

¶15

AGED 39, S/O. RADHAKRISHNAN UNNITHAN,KRISHNAVILASOM, KADUVINAL MURI, VALLIKUNNAM VILLAGE, MAVELIKARA TALUK, PIN 690 014

¶16

3 RADHAKRISHNAN UNNITHAN

¶17

AGED 70 YEARS, KRISHNAVILASOM, KADUVINAL MURI, VALLIKUNNAM VILLAGE, MAVELIKARA TALUK, PIN 690 014

¶18

4 RADHAMMA

¶19

AGED 67 YEARS, W/O. RADHAKRISHNAN UNNITHAN, KRISHNAVILASOM, KADUVINAL MURI, VALLIKUNNAM VILLAGE, MAVELIKARA TALUK PIN 690 014

¶20

SRI.T.R.RENJITH, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶21

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01.11.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

Crl.M.C. No.7983 of 2017

¶23

¶24

ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.

¶25

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

¶26

Crl.M.C. No.7983 of 2017

¶27

=========================== Dated this the 1^st day of November, 2019

¶28

ORDER

¶29

The petitioner herein is the de facto complainant in relation to the impugned Annexure-A1 Final Report arising out of Crime No.1133/2013 of Vallikkunnam Police Station, Alappuzha, which has been registered for offences punishable under Secs.498A & 34 of the Indian Penal Code and which is now pending as C.C.No.1135/2014 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Kayamkulam, in which respondents 2 to 4 are the accused. It is stated that now the entire disputes between the petitioner herein/de facto complainant and respondents 2 to 4 have been settled amicably and that the petitioner has sworn to Annexure-A2 affidavit before this Court, wherein it is stated that she has settled the entire disputes with respondents 2 to 4 and that she has no objection for quashment of the impugned criminal proceedings pending against respondents 2 to 4. It is in the light of these aspects that the petitioner has preferred the instant Crl.M.C. with the prayer to quash the impugned criminal proceedings against respondents 2 to 4.

¶30

Crl.M.C. No.7983 of 2017

¶31

¶32

The petitioner herein and respondents 2 to 4 herein seek quashment of the impugned criminal proceedings. It has been held by this Court in Ayshath Muneera Hameed T.M. v. Chikkilodancheriya Kooveri Davvod & Anr. [2017 (2) KHC 799) that the de facto complainant can maintain the petition under Sec.482 of the Cr.P.C seeking quashment of the impugned criminal proceedings, for offence as in Sec.498A of the IPC, etc.

¶33

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

¶34

Crl.M.C. No.7983 of 2017

¶35

¶36

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.

¶37

Accordingly, it is ordered in the interest of justice that the impugned Annexure-A1 Final Report arising out of Crime No.1133/2013 of Vallikkunnam Police Station, Alappuzha, which is now pending as C.C.No.1135/2014 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Kayamkulam and all further proceedings arising therefrom pending against respondents 2 to 4/accused will stand quashed.

¶38

The petitioner/de facto complainant 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.

¶39

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

¶40

Sd/-

¶41

ALEXANDER THOMAS JUDGE

¶42

vgd

¶43

Crl.M.C. No.7983 of 2017

¶44

¶45

APPENDIX

¶46

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶47

ANNEXURE A1 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR AND FINAL REPORT IN C.C 1135/2014 ON THE FILES OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, KAYAMKULAM IN CRIME NO. 1133/2013 OF VALLIKUNNAM POLICE STATION

¶48

ANNEXURE A2 AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE PETITIONER/DE-FACTO COMPLAINANT

Mayadevi K. v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mayadevi K. 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

Abdu Samad Vs the State of Kerala

Saranya.P.S Vs C.T.Prakashan

Mary Jasmine Vs State of Kerala

Neethu Krishnan Vs Sunilkumar

Victim Vs State of Kerala

State of Kerala Vs Rajan K.J.