Allowed

Krishnankutty v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC3 Apr 2019Crl.MC/991/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala exercised powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash an FIR and subsequent proceedings against the petitioner, a husband, where the matrimonial dispute was amicably settled and the de facto complainant filed an affidavit confirming settlement and lack of objection.

What did the court decide?

The impugned FIR and all further proceedings arrested therefrom pending against the accused were quashed.

Krishnankutty Vs State of Kerala — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 03RD DAY OF APRIL 2019 / 13TH CHAITHRA, 1941

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 991 of 2019

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC 118/2013 of JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS - I, OTTAPPALAM

¶7

CRIME NO. 902/2012 OF Sreekrishnapuram Police Station , Palakkad

¶8

PETITIONER/S:

¶9

KRISHNANKUTTY, AGED 58 YEARS S/O.RAMAN MOOTHAN, MEDUNGOTTUTHODI HOUSE, PUNCHAPADAM, KADAMBAZHIPPURAM, OTTAPALAM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT-678633.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.MAHESH V.MENON

¶11

RESPONDENT/S:

¶12

1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031.

¶13

2 SARADA, AGED 55 YEARS D/O.LATE NARAYANAGUPTHAN, PARAMPOTTUPADAM HOUSE, KADAMPAZHIPPURAM.P.O., PALAKKAD DISTRICT-678633.

¶14

BY ADV. SRI.P.K.NIJOY

¶15

OTHER PRESENT:

¶16

SRI.SAIGI JACOB PALATTY, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR FOR R1, SRI.N.K.NIJOY FOR R2

¶17

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03.04.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

::2::

¶19

Crl.MC.No. 991 of 2019

¶20

ALEXANDER THOMAS, J .

¶21

Crl.M.C.No.991 Of 2019

¶22

Dated this the 3^rd day of April, 2019.

¶23

O R D E R

¶24

The petitioner herein is the accused in the impugned Anx-A1 FIR in Crime No.902/2012 of Sreekrishnapuram Police Station, Palakkad District, registered for offences punishable under Secs.341, 324, 506(ii) & 294(b) of the I.P.C, which has been registered on the basis of a complaint filed by the 2^nd respondent/defacto complainant and which has led to the institution of Anx-A2 Final Report in C.C.No.118/2013 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Ottapalam. The petitioner is the husband of the 2^nd respondent. It is stated that now the entire disputes between the petitioner and the 2^nd respondent/defacto complainant have been settled amicably and that the 2^nd respondent has sworn to Anx-A3 affidavit before this Court, wherein it is stated that she has settled the entire disputes with the petitioner and that she has no objection for quashment of the impugned criminal proceedings pending against the petitioner. 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 him.

¶25

::3::

¶26

Crl.MC.No. 991 of 2019

¶27

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 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.

¶28

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.

¶29

::4::

¶30

Crl.MC.No. 991 of 2019

¶31

Accordingly, it is ordered in the interest of justice that the impugned Anx-A1 FIR in Crime No.902/2012 of Sreekrishnapuram Police Station, Palakkad District, which has led to the institution of Anx-A2 Final Report in C.C.No.118/2013 on the file

¶32

of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Ottapalam and all further proceedings arising therefrom pending against the accused will stand quashed.

¶33

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

¶34

sd/ALEXANDER THOMAS, Judge.

¶35

bkn/-

¶36

::5::

¶37

Crl.MC.No. 991 of 2019

¶38

APPENDIX

¶39

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶40

ANNEXURE A1 CERTIFIED COPY OF FIR IN CRIME NO.902/2012 OF SREEKRISHNAPURAM POLICE STATION DATED 18.12.2012.

¶41

ANNEXURE A2 CERTIFIED COPY OF FINAL REPORT IN CC.NO.118/2013 OF JFCM, OTTAPALAM STAY PETITION DATED 8.2.2013. ANNEXURE A3 AFFIDAVIT EXECUTED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 15.1.2019.

Krishnankutty v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Krishnankutty 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

Dhananjayan.S.G Vs State of Kerala

Jinu Saji Vs State of Kerala

Santhosh, Vs State of Kerala

Arun Kumar Vs State of Kerala

James, Vs State of Kerala

Mercy Vs State of Kerala